False Start of Illegal Shift
 

Quick Question:

How are you calling the situation when the offensive players are not set before the snap? The situation I'm think of usually involves a wide-out taking his time getting set and the snap occuring while they are jogging out to their position. I have been calling this an illegal shift. Correct or not?

Thanks.

Your instincts are correct.

Read Rule 2 - definitions. Don't have it handy, but a false start is defined as action that simulates action at the snap. Players don't normally "not get set" when the ball is snapped - so it's an illegal shift.

Same with going into a three-point stance at the time the ball is snapped. Players don't normally go into a three point stance when the ball is snapped, so it is illegal motion.

ART. 6 . . . After a huddle or shift all 11 players of A shall come to an absolute
stop and shall remain stationary simultaneously without movement of hands,
feet, head or body for at least one second before the snap.

PENALTY: Illegal formation (Arts. 1, 2, 3) – (S19); illegal snap (Art. 4) – (S7-
19); illegal numbering (Art. 5) – (S19); illegal shift (Art. 6) – (S20); illegal
motion (Art. 7) – (S20); planned loose-ball infraction (Art. 8) – (S19) – 5 yards.

Best way to think about a false start is the offender is usually set. Never stopping would be a shift. Going foward but not simulating the snap action is illegal motion.

False start is the only one you want to kill.

Kill this play in NCAA.

Going to 3 points is a shift. If the ball is snapped less than a second later, it's an illegal shift foul, not illegal motion.

What players "normally do" is not part of the false start, shift, or motion rules.

And in a lot of areas in HS games, too.

They want it shut down here if it is judged to simulate the snap of course.

Peace

Illegal shift is a foul at the snap. Just like a player in motion going forward. Live ball foul.
You cannot asume the player will not get set before the snap or if two are in motion that they both will not set.

The play should be allowed to continue because:
B could foul on the play (double foul, reply), A could lose yardage so the penalty would be declined, A could have a more serious foul (multiple foul - B choice), A could fumble or throw an interception.

We are also advised to shut the play down if the motion/shift is designed to draw the defense into an encroachment. Example, a team goes in motion frequently throuout the game with a set back taking an even tempo step forward and then going either left or right.

In a critical short yardage situation, usually late in the game, the same team puts the same man in motion with an exaggerated explosion out of his set position, and if the defense is smart and ignores it, then turns either right or left. Flagging as a false start usually stops any repeat attempts, or if the defense mistakenly bites on the first attempt.

Sigh... fine, I'll bite. WHY? Rule doesn't say to. And don't pull out the "nothing good can come of this play so kill it" crap or we'll all know you've got no clue.

I agree with your statement, but don't see how you got "simulating the snap" from the OP at all.

This is the mindset in many places where I think the people have a pretty good clue.

But then again, this is the same topic that comes up 2-3 times a year and usually turns into a huge flame war. It's simple- if the powers that be want it shut down in your area, do it. If they don't, don't. Easy enough.

Well, actually it is if you want to help someone understand the rule rather than just answering a rule question by quoting the rule (if he understood the rule, he wouldn't be asking the question in the first place!).

Rule change this year. 7-1-2-b-5 on page FR-67.

"The offensive team never coming to a one-second stop prior to the snap after the ball is ready for play."

Yep. Those rule changes will catch up to those who don't keep up with them. What kind of pie do you like mbcrowder, or how you like your crow cooked. :D

Disagree. We don't teach people to understand the rule by teaching them concepts that have nothing to do with those in the rule. "Normally do" and "simulating action at the snap" are unrelated.

We teach people to understand the rule by using video, on-field training, and discussion to show them they types of play that do and do not fall under the prohibition of the rule. That way they learn to recognize "simulating action at the snap" and other concepts in the rules.

Must be a Texas thing. Not NFHS.

:eek:

yeha, he said it was NCAA!

Texas uses NCAA rules for football.

Thanks for beating me to it Welpe......hmmm, looks like I DO have a clue after all....

Pie, please. Apple if possible. I am not doing football this year for the first time in forever. So --- I apologize both for being wrong and for being kind of a jackwagon about it. :( <--- where's my emoticon for sheepish grin???

And the reason for this rule change was so a team scrambling to the ball in the final seconds but never getting set could be guilty of a foul that stops the clock and is subject to a 10-second reduction. Both of these are directly in response to the UNC-UT bowl game last year.

The side effect is the team that breaks the huddle and then snaps the ball before the wideout gets to his position is now a dead ball false start rather than a live ball illegal shift. That's a fair trade off.

No worries mb! We are all here to get better, and besides, I know better than to mess with Texas anyway! :)

Once the ball became dead, wouldn't you stop the clock (if necessary) to present the option to team B and enforce the penalty if chosen? So how does this change affect the status of the clock?

Robert, the clock will stop to enforce the penalty but then it will be wound on the ready for play. One of the reasons this was done, as bison said, was to prevent Team A from unfairly scrambling to spike the ball. New this year also to NCAA, there is also a 10 second subtraction from the game clock in this case if there is less than a minute to go in the half and either team commits a foul that stops the clock.

We're not using the 10 second subtraction in Texas HS...yet.

Massachusetts too.

so texas didn't take the 10 second subtraction, huh? Mass did. but with each side getting 5 timeouts per half, I dont imagine we'll be doing too many runoffs.

Nope, guess they decided it wasn't needed at the high school level since we're using the 2005 timing rules anyways.

5 timeouts?! Holy cow, why so many? :eek:

I can't believe they would want to enforce that against a team which is trying to consume time. Can the time deduction be declined?

Yes, it can be declined. Just like in the NFL.

Thanks Welpe. If you did not see the UNC-UT bowl game, UNC ran a play that ended with the clock running and about 10 seconds remaining. There was confusion on the sideline as they initially sent in their FG team and then some came off. The QB got to the line to snap the ball and spike it but they had probably 15+ players on the field with several of them trying to run off. They were probably guilty of illegal shift, illegal motion, and illegal substitution (not the kind that would have been a dead ball foul last year). After the spike the clock read 0 and the officials declared the game over. UT coaches came on the field celebrating a nice bowl win and everyone was happy.

Except there was a review that determined the game clock should still have 1 second remaining. The officials enforced the penalty (I believe they went with illegal shift) and wound the clock on the ready. While all this was going on, UNC got their FG team ready and snapped it as soon as the RFP was blown. The kick was good and UNC won in OT.

The talk of a 10-second subtraction started immediately. Under the old rules though, this foul would not have had a 10-second reduction because the foul itself did not stop the clock (it was the incomplete pass). Adding a rule that if all 11 players are not set before the snap, it is a dead ball false start which would stop the clock. The two rules by themselves would not have changed the outcome last year but combined the game would have been over.

For Robert's benefit, the offended team can decline the 10-second reduction. If they accept the reduction, the clock always starts on the RFP. If they decline the reduction, the clock starts on the snap. This overrides any other rules about starting the clock.

I wish I knew, haha. it's nuts. 3 fulls and 2 twenty second TO's per team per half.

can make for a long game when 19 TOs are called.

also fun:

coach: timeout
me: ok, full or 20?
coach: [not answering]
me: [knowing I need to let my WH know which variety] coach, full or 20?
coach: [still not answering]
me: ok we're going full. [I signal WH; WH begins to signal full TO]
coach: make it a TWENTY!

[cue the WH/HC argument]

Yes, the offended team has the option accept the time deduction or not.

chyme, jeepers creepers! Sounds like somebody took the basketball rule (3 fulls, 2 20s) and went wild with it.

I can't believe they'd change a fundamental commonality between all rule sets. Weird.

I heard they're giving 5 timeouts in baseball next season, too. It's true, it's true.
:D

Then I guess you didn't realize the 3 major USAn football codes started as one.

Then I guess you like to make assumptions not grounded in fact.