"Traveling" Signal at snap
 

I received a phone call last night with this play:

A breaks the huddle and trips (A88, A80, A85) go out to a wing.

All A players come set for one second; however, once that's done, A88, A80, and A85 start doing the traveling/false start signal. The ball is snapped while they are doing this.

Seems really straight forward to me as I have a flag. But, maybe I'm missing something.

Crew working the game last Friday didn't flag it and a crew working their underclass game on Monday flagged it.

Thoughts?

Are eligible receivers required to stand completely still?
Did the movement simulate the snap?

What's the flag for? Exactly what rule was broken?

7-2-6

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-c.../rule7-2-6.png

7-2-7

bigjohn: 7-2-6 doesn't warrant a flag, because these players DID come set. THEN they started moving their hands.

Tanner: you're calling this MOTION?

really? what the he## does shall remain stationary, mean then??

It means motionless. The requirement is one second, which all 11 satisfied. Did you read the play?

yeah, did you read the rule

and shall remain means once they stop they can't start moving their hands.

Well, yes... it is movement.

Damn, read the whole sentence...

AND SHALL REMAIN ... FOR AT LEAST ONE SECOND.

The way you're reading this prohibits players going in motion entirely.

Hand movements are not motion. Do you require all our receivers to keep their hands completely still before the snap (after the 1 second is fulfilled) - as in: no adjusting their glove, no swinging motion of the arms at their sides, no turning their heads toward the QB and back to the CB? Hopefully the answer is "of course not".

Yeah, it's movement. No, it's not motion. Sorry, I don't like this flag.

The way he's reading it, the rule prohibits their ever moving again. Until they die. :eek:

they can't be moving (hands, feet or heads) at the snap. There must be at least 1 full second of this before the snap or it is a foul. So even though they came set, they started moving again and a new 1 second is requires, just like a new shift.



Rule 7-2-6 says they must remain motionless until the ball is snapped but it must be at least one second, it could be more if there is time on the 25 to be set for longer. The 1 second means they can't just stop moving and immediately snap the ball.

Then what is the definition of motion?

I agree with all of those. However, this is clear a deliberate act that is non-football.

I would flag this. This isn't a natural motion, and is strictly being done to distract the defense. I would also flag swinging of the arms, if excessive, by the recievers. I would not flag a head turn or slight movements if not done in a manner to simulate the start of the play. This would be one of those "spirit of the rule" situations and not a "letter of the law" .

From 2012 POE

ILLEGAL SHIFTS INVOLVING THE QUARTERBACK
As today’s offensive formations continue to become more complex, it must be stressed to all coaches and game
officials the need to eliminate illegal shifts involving the quarterback. Whenever any player on the offensive
team moves to a new position after the ready-for-play signal and before the snap, it is a shift (NFHS Football
Rule 2-39). Coaches and game officials must recognize that certain movements by quarterbacks must also be
penalized as illegal shifts.
There are several examples of movements by the quarterback that would be considered an illegal shift, such as
when all offensive players immediately get into their stance and then the quarterback receives the snap as soon

as he/she gets their hands under center. This is illegal because the quarterback needs to be set for one second
prior to the snap after the linemen going into stance as this is, in fact, a shift. An illegal-shift foul also occurs
when the quarterback first sends a player in motion and after the player is in motion, the quarterback then goes
under center to receive the snap.
When all other offensive players are set, movements by the quarterback, other than slightly moving a foot to
start another player in motion, must be followed by a pause of one second by everyone on the offense to be
considered a legal shift. If the offense is allowed to execute illegal shifts or other movements, teams will gain
an advantage not intended by the rules and will disrupt the desired balance between offense and defense.

I would have to see this, but I do not think that is the intention of the rule. Players even on the LOS in the line move their heads around as they are often communicating blocking schemes or listening to a play call and it is not common to call a foul on those movements.

For all you know that signal might have been an indication of what route they were to run or combination. I have little problem with this based on what I am reading. It might have looked worse in person, but I cannot imagine just that signal alone drawing a flag from me. Maybe if it drew some reaction, but receivers often make signals to their teammates or to the wing trying to get lined up.

Peace

Thanks for stepping up and (mis)defining this for us. Since clinics have been telling me the opposite of what you just said, we've all been doing this wrong for years. Now that we have the on-high definitive interpretation from someone with your vast experience both on the field and in meetings with TPTB, we can start ruling correctly again.

I hear you, but I don't see "distract the defense" as either the reason or a problem. Receivers and backs hand signal to each other all the time. Yes, this one is more blatant and more visible - but why in the world would it distract the defense or affect them at all. We don't make them reset every time someone turns a head or swings an arm. Only motion that simulated the snap should be flagged (excepting, of course, moving forward). I highly doubt that the spirit of the rule was to prevent this - it was done to let the defense be aware that the snap is imminent and to prevent any advantage. The 1-second stop does the former, and the actions described give no advantage.

So 7-1-7b REFANDUMP?

or flat out 9-9-5

If we decide this is legal, are we going to allow "butt bobbing" by an offensive lineman or not ?? How much and what type of movement is legal and doesn't draw a flag. I think this comes down to the intent of the rulesmakers and not the "letter of the law" as written in the book. If they wanted to do this "traveling" signal to signal something to their quarterback, they would be welcome to do this before stopping for a second and then running their play. In this situation, they are doing it strictly as a distraction in a method that the rulesmakers do not intend, in my opinion. I still feel a flag is appropriate. I would call illegal procedure, although there may be just cause to rule this unsportsmanlike conduct.

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

Completely legal.

yeah, go Canada!

Canadian Experts Call for Nationwide Ban on Spanking | Team Mom - Yahoo! Shine

What possible advantage are they gaining by this?

What in the hell does this have to do with this discussion at hand?

Also, I don't buy that the defense is going to be distracted in any material way from this action.

About as much as the Canadian Ruling does!!!!!

:D

1. Moving your hands is not a shift.

2. No it doesn't.

You're making stuff up. "Not a natural motion" and "distracting the defense" are not illegal. Doing stuff the official doesn't like or doesn't think is "proper football" is also not illegal.

Spirit of what rule? There's just no advantage to this.

I don't think I'm making stuff up at all. We're told all the time to officiate to the spirit of the rules and not the letter of the law. If they have people standing out there waving their arms or dancing, you're telling me that these aren't flagged unless their feet move or they go forward. I go back to my previous post regarding linemen "butt bobbing". Do we not flag that either ?? What criteria do we use to determine what movements are legal and what aren't. We have to use common sense and only allow movements that are common to the game, otherwise we have a travesty being created out there.

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.

Agree that it's a HTBT situation; however, his words are it's an illegal shift, at least.

What I think we can agree on, is that I hope we never see this !!!: :D:D:D

The NFHS has defined it as a shift when the QB takes his hands and puts them under center. So I could see this defined as a shift, sure.

For what it's worth, which may be minimal, I've now asked 5 FED guys with vastly more FED experience than me, and none of them think this should be illegal as long as it's not done suddenly as if to draw someone off.

I believe they defined an action to move under the center, not just putting your hands under center.

Peace

7.2.7 SITUATION: The quarterback by voice command has signaled his teammates
to assume a set position while he is standing upright behind the center.
The quarterback steps forward and places his hands under the center to receive
the snap: (a) at the instant the snap is made; or (b) which is made after he is
motionless, but prior to one second having elapsed; or (c) which is made after he
is motionless for one second; or (d) which is made after he is motionless for one
second, but while he is stepping backward with one foot as the snap is made.
RULING: In (a), it is illegal motion. In (b), it is an illegal shift. In (c), it is legal. In
(d), it is legal unless a teammate is also in motion at the snap. COMMENT: If the
quarterback drops his hands under the snapper without stepping forward, it is a
shift and not motion. (2-39; 7-2-6)

Yes it's a shift. But early in the game, I'm talking to the QB rather than flagging this. If it persists, I'll have to get it.

I'm just on my first year of football, but I don't see how hand signals constitute a shift.

They don't. Some apparently think that the movement described in the OP is equivalent to the QB dropping under the snapper, which by interpretation IS a shift.

The QB moving his hands under the snapper is a shift because his whole upper body moves and because it's akin to a lineman dropping to a 3-point stance.

The end giving hand signals is not sufficiently similar, IMHO, to be considered a shift.

They don't?????

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-c.../rule7-2-6.png


:rolleyes:

Starting to wonder if you even watch football. Thanks for quoting the same rule 3 times now. NO ONE requires WR's arms, head, hands to be completely still. By interpretation, not in "motion" is not the same as "motionless". No one is going to flag a receiver who turns his head to look at the official to make sure he's where he's supposed to be. No one is going to flag a QB for standing upright, signaling to someone, getting right back under center and snapping the ball.

Seems to me if one considers this a shift, one would need to consider it a shift when the QB turns his head (without even standing upright) to yell signals.

BigJohn:

The phrase "remain stationary...for at least one second before the snap" does NOT mean that further motion after the stop is prohibited -- in fact, it's quite common to have a player go in motion after the stop.

Why are we still talking about this? No one is going to change his mind. He'll call it and the rest of us will not.

Ohio State Rules Interpreter Bruce Mauer says.



Check Page 58, Rule 7-2-6: says "without movement of hands". I would probably warn them the first time, then penalize them afterwards, unless they simulated the snap or drew B to encroach. I do not know if I have ever seen that type of mvt with receivers before. The key is they can do it initially, but must remain "without movement" for 1 sec before the snap.

Bruce

then after I pointed out that all had been stationary for 1 second he replied this:

Legal play as long as they all set for 1 second without mvt prior to the snap.

Bruce

So there is the answer in Ohio.

I agree, but what is the harm talking about this? People have differing opinions and will on this like other issues.

Sometimes it is good to talk these things out so when you are faced with these situations or you make this call, what the potential reaction will be. If officials think this is silly to call, what do you think a coach is going to say?

And for the record I disagree big time with our head clinician on this and he would have to tell us we should have called this to buy his position on this topic. ;)

Peace

I'm fine with this discussion continuing but please let's ensure we maintain our decorum.

And everywhere else. As everyone but you has been saying.

More broadly, you can do some things in that position that you're not doing otherwise. The idea of a shift is that you give up one position for another -- or at least you threaten to do so, in some shifts that bring you back to where you started. Rolling your hands isn't like that.

Which is exactly what everyone but you has been saying.

When you read the rule, you insert "immediately" into the phrase "prior to the snap." The rule is not remain stationary for at least one second immediately prior to the snap.

So basically after everyone has set for one second all backs could do jumping jacks prior to the snap as long as the officials deem this not to be a false start, all movement is ok except motion, which is not defined and simulating a start??

John why do you always insist on dragging things into the absurd?

What is the definition of motion?

What is the intent of the rule? Have you ever seen anyone doing jumping jacks on a football field while getting into formation?

Peace

mo'tion n 1a moving;change of position 2 gesture 3 proposal made at a meeting - v. make, or direct by, gestures. Webser's Dictionary

Different from the definition of ILLEGAL motion.

Define illegal motion then.

"Motion" in general (in those cases where simulating the start of play is not the issue) should be understood as gaining a head start of some kind, not breathing, blinking, sign language, scratching an itch, etc.

There is no definition of "motion" per se in NFHS rules. They only state that only one player may be in motion at the snap and then only if that motion is not towards the opponents goalline. If the motion doesn't meet that criteria or the portion about being established in the back then that is defined as illegal motion.

So the action is not an illegal motion as it is not moving forward at the snap. It is not an illegal shift if they have moved from a huddle or other set position to another set position. It is not a false start if they have not shifted or feigned an action simulating action at the snap, committed an act "clearly intended" to cause B to encroach, or a lineman that has placed a hand on/near the ground and picked it up or made a quick movement.

There is no "A must remain as a statue" prior to the snap rule.

well if you define the action as motion, there are 3 of them doing it at the same time. That is illegal, I am pretty sdure.

So I assume you are saying I can have all my backs doing jumping jacks at the same time at the snap because that isn't considered more than one in motion.

So a lineman in a two point stance pointing out his blocking assignment needs to be flagged for .........what?

As for the jumping jacks, you could go with false start as it would appear to be a simulated action unless he moved like a turtle or do like was done at Watauga a couple of years back with the motion man doing backflips and pop him for USC.

If you think jumping up and down is the same thing as giving hand signals, then we don't have enough common ground to continue this discussion. I'm out.

So if they are waving their arms around without the jumping parts, they are good?

I am just trying to figure out the difference in movement and motion.

BTW our center was warned at the scrimmage not to point out blocking calls so abrupt or false start would be called.

Unless they're perfectly synchronized. In which case, they're The Pips.

Key words

I don't think I would flag waiving their arms around without the jumping parts, unless it appeared to simulate the snap. As long as it wasn't abrupt, I see no foul here.