How does this not say that players must remain motionless for one second prior to the snap ?? Once again, we use common sense here but to me it appears the rule is cut and dried.

Stop exaggerating to try to make a point. There is a difference between dancing which would include moving feet, body and arms, than someone moving their arms. And we have never required someone to be totally still. If that is the case we would flag any offensive player that moves their head at some point and I doubt seriously anyone flags that. I get a reasonable discussion about if this specific signal should be allowed, but I do not get the position that any movement falls under the illegal category. And no one at a high level that I am aware of calls a false start for players moving while in a stance either. Usually only someone that is not familiar with football would call that kind of action. Never has their been a ruling that says a player must be totally still. They just cannot simulate the snap.

Peace

I am having a hard time seeing why this is even a discussion, if you think that this is a flag, then I hope your WRs never signal to you that they are on or off the line, because if they do when someone is in motion, you would have two men in motion from your logic.

I cannot believe something like this is 3 pages deep already.

This is no flag, maybe if we felt like it, it could be a talk to, but I would not flag this.

Please, the first time you call on a Friday, go out there, and flag the receivers every time the WR turns his head or wiggles his fingers and then isn't statuesque for a full second before the ball is snapped. Then come back here and tell us what your CC had to say about it.

You have your head buried in the sand trying hard to win an argument, instead of listening to what is being said and using that common sense you claim "we" use.

Common sense is never cut and dried.

The rule is cut and dried. Common sense says it should not be officated that way. I have never said it should. There is a difference in movement that is common to the game of football and movements that are not. That in my judgement is the distinction, and the way the rulesmakers want the games officiated. In my opinion, recievers that are making "traveling" signals are not making movements common to the game of football. I would flag this movement. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, and it's obvious there are people on both sides of this discussion.

I understand that you will not believe anyone here... and honestly I don't blame you for that - you have no idea what the level of experience is with people here. I would like you to bring this to your higher ups and ask, though... especially if you're on a crew. And let us know what they say.

If rolling your arms is illegal, what type of signals would you allow the WR's to make to their QB (or vice versa). And which would you not, and why does this one cross your line? This could easily be as simple as the WR's telling the QB they heard and understood the audible just called. Who knows. You mentioned "not natural to football"... don't ALL signals have to be not natural to football, so that they are read as signals?

At MOST, this is a "cut that out", and even then I think you're over officiating.

I'm not the only one not believing anyone here, as there are others who believe as I do, that this is a foul. You're choosing not to believe them. I will be contacting my state association to get their opinion on this play, as I do wish to be calling this properly should it occur. As to my experience, I am a white hat on a high school crew for over 25 years. I don't claim to be better than anyone else when it comes to officiating, but I do have a understanding of the game and believe I am a good official. I have a track record that would indicate that others agree with me. We have a difference of opinion on this play, and that's ok. I've enjoyed the discussion and will try to get an opinion from my superiors and use it as a learning experience.

Under this philosophy, there goes lifting the leg or the foot by the QB.

This is one of those rules that can't be written precisely enough to cover all cases and therefore must be administered according to the reason the rule was put in place. There's a difference between a wide receiver rolling his hands and a guard bobbing his butt. The latter, although it might not be a deliberate tactic, would tend to either deceive defensive linemen into thinking the ball was being put in play (false start) or give an advantage in getting off the line at the snap (illegal motion). The former, though obviously deliberate, does nothing that the rules against false starts and illegal motion were put in place to prevent. And the fact that it's not an obvious part of the game or "natural football move", if anything, argues for its being legal rather than illegal. A player's pulling out a piece of gum and chewing it is not common to the game (particularly with a mouthpiece in), and therefore there's no reason to outlaw it; it certainly doesn't give an unfair advantage to the player or his team.

According to our Head Football Clinician in Illinois, his opinion is it's a foul.

I honestly think this is a HTBT situation more than anything. Because I do not think he would advocate any movement from the receivers or even line just because they move their arms. We allow so many other movements, unless the movement was jerky or animated, I still cannot see how I would even call this.

Peace

What foul? False start? It can't be a shift, can it?

I could buy a false start (if it is herky, jerky and animated), but not a shift under and circumstances. And a FS would be a stretch for me.

Peace

I was not questioning YOUR experience... I only brought up experience because I understood why you felt no need to believe what people were saying here... because you have no way of knowing THEIR experience.

My apologies if you felt I was questioning yours.

My point, though, was the second half of the post, not the experience part. To wit: "If rolling your arms is illegal, what type of signals would you allow the WR's to make to their QB (or vice versa). And which would you not, and why does this one cross your line? This could easily be as simple as the WR's telling the QB they heard and understood the audible just called. Who knows. You mentioned "not natural to football"... don't ALL signals have to be not natural to football, so that they are read as signals?"

I have asked two FED guys I know and trust that are considerably higher in their states than I am in mine, and both answers were almost identical to Jeff's above. If jerky, false start... otherwise, this is nothing. There's no reason not to let the players signal to each other.