Guess I am done here! Got Rut agreeing with me! :D

We had a play last night.

4/2. Team has its punting unit in. Line is in a 2-point stance, bent over at the waist. Along with a hard count, the entire line very abruptly and simultaneously comes up at the waist and turns to look at the sideline. B player comes across.

The A bench was very unhappy when I ruled it a false start. To me, it was a no brainer.

i am sure NFHS didn't have this play in mind when the free blocking zone was established. A defensive tackle launching into the belly of the O-lineman would cause serious injury. So if you think this play is legal, i think you ought to rethink.

As long as he doesn't lead with the helmet I would have no problem. The linemen need to take some responsibility to protect themselves.

If you want to argue it's an unfair act, unless they say something like pretending there's something wrong with the ball or something, I disagree but at least there's a rule we can discuss. If you're going to make the argument you're making, though, where's the rule support for that beside your own sensibilities of what's right and wrong? The offense controls the snap, if they're not prepared then shame on them. As long as the contact is legal, no spearing, etc., then what's the issue?

Then the defense needs to pay better attention. When coaching defensive linemen, I'd would tell them that any time the center's hand is on the ball the snap is imminent.

I agree with you. I don't see how this is illegal. Is it kind of bush league? Yes, but I don't see where you draw the line.

I concur, The D line should have stayed focused on the snappers hands. The fact that he was still down should have tipped them off. Also I wish we had some sound, so we can see if there were words said that made this more unfair. "the ball is deflated" rule in the casebook. The actions alone i think dont really make this illegal in my judgement. I concur that it is bush-league though.

What you might coach is irrelevant. The rule quite plainly says that you can't do this. And this (or very similar plays) is what we see in videos during clinics to explain this rule.

Everyone standing up and staring at the sideline is practically screaming that there is no snap imminent. Just because the snapper keeps his head down, that means nothing. Isn't he prevented by rule from lifting his hand once he places it on the ball? The defense would know that, too.

I'd kill it.

I'm not so sure it's that clear cut....the comment posted above says if the offense leads the defense to believe there's a problem AND a snap is imminent. If they just look at the sideline for the play, in what way have they led the defense to believe there's a problem? The "this ball is flat" bush league play certainly meets that condition, but I don't see that in this case. This one falls into the "say we're spiking it and run a play (NOT a fake kneel or spike but just saying it pre-snap)" a la the Lions a couple weeks ago, IMO.

Reading is fundamental... the rule says the EXACT opposite.

Thanks, but I can read pretty well. You can disagree, fine, but no need to be an ass about it.

scrounge, you omitted a crucial "not" in your summary of the rule: "...a snap is NOT imminent..."

I'm assuming it was a typo rather than a reading issue.

No, I'm aware of that, but that's not the only condition in the case example. The case talks about when a team acts like there's a problem (a missing tee in the case book example) AND a snap isn't imminent. If they don't try to deceive by saying there's an administrative issue or some non-playing problem (the ball is flat, the tee is missing, etc), then I don't think it's as clear cut that this is illegal. If they're in formation, don't say or do anything outside of normal football acts except look over at the sideline, then I think a very reasonable case can be made that this is not an unfair act.