![]() |
Fed: shifts involving potential snapper
This comes out of a discussion on a coaching Web site.
The ball is ready for play by snap, and A1, facing forward, has a hand behind his line of scrimmage and near the ball but not touching it. (No other player of A is touching the ball either.) 5 other players of A are some distance away to the left of him facing forward behind their line of scrimmage with their heads breaking the plane of A1's waist and one or both hands on or near the ground. 1 other player of A is similarly positioned to the right of A1. Then A1 and the aforementioned players from his left shift to their right to form a balanced line around A2, who as part of the shift puts his hand on the ball and faces forward. Was this a false start? Does A1 get treated as a snapper as long as he looks like he might be the snapper, and are players of A determined to be on the line on that basis? Or is there no such thing in Fed as position on A's line until a player of A has a hand on the ball? |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
With that said, I don't see how there would be much of any advantage to Team A/K making formation shifts like this... and why would you want to put your team in a position of making an official use his judgement as to what constitutes a false start under A, B, or C above. |
Quote:
Restrictions for encroachment begin when the snapper places his hands on the ball. (7-1-6) Restrictions for false starts begin with the ready for play whistle is blown. (7-1-7) |
You may be interested in how the discussion has gone there --
CoachHuey.com . The position I'd taken is the same as jTheUmp's above, based on the fact that nobody is officially on team A's line until there's a snapper, and there's no snapper until someone's hand is on the ball. There can be false starts even without a player's being on team A's line, of course, but the specific restriction regarding interior OL with a hand on or near the ground is relevant only to players whose heads break the plane of the snapper's waist. Two people at Huey's say common sense dictates considering players of A to be on the line based on one of them being near the ball even though not touching it. |
If the shift was a sudden movement that simulates action at the snap or anyone not obviously a back or end was a in 3-point stance and shifted then you could have a false start. A team could initially set with 3 on the line and shift into a formation with 7 on the line and there would be no issue.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman
"Anyone not obviously a back or end"? So the burden is on players of A to show they're not interior line players? So who else would the "burden" be on? |
Quote:
This problem was made by the rules makers when they defined "snapper" analogously to "passer", "kicker", etc. but didn't realize that when they defined the position of players on the line as relative to the snapper in the 1940s, and had certain provisions relating to players on A's line before the ball is snapped, they needed another definition. NCAA's current definition of "snapper" does not have this problem... Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
7.1.6 SITUATION B: Snapper A1 is positioned over the ball following the ready
signal, but has not yet placed his hand(s) on it. Either: (a) A2; or (b) B1, breaks the plane of the neutral zone. Both players adjust their position and get behind the neutral zone; or (c) A1 has a hand on the ground and then stands erect to call out a blocking assignment. RULING: No infraction in either (a), (b) or (c). In (c), the snapper is not restricted as are other linemen after placing a hand on or near the ground. (7-1-7c) This particular case play makes it sound like he is the snapper by his stance over the ball and the other line have been established. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:03am. |