False Start OR Illegal Shift?

[BktBallRef]

It's not illegal motion. Illegal motion occurs when one player in motion does not meet the requirements in 7-2-7.

it's not a false start as players are not simulated action at the snap. Linemen go up at the snap. They don't go down into a 3 or 4 point stance.

It's an illegal shift, a violation of 7-2-8.

[Sturno]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

It's not illegal motion. Illegal motion occurs when one player in motion does not meet the requirements in 7-2-7.

it's not a false start as players are not simulated action at the snap. Linemen go up at the snap. They don't go down into a 3 or 4 point stance.

It's an illegal shift, a violation of 7-2-8.

Maybe he's got one bad elbow....?

[tjones1]

Agree, I've got an illegal shift.

2.39 Situation

[bob jenkins]

so, asking as a fan, what difference does it make?

[stratref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

so, asking as a fan, what difference does it make?

Illegal shift vs illegal motion, not really a difference, both are 5 yards from the previous spot, but could be declined by the defense if they so choose.

Illegal shift vs false start, on a false start it is a dead ball foul so we (as officials) will prevent the play from starting and automatically assess the penalty, an illegal shift as mentioned above is a live ball foul, and based on the actions during the down could be declined.

Jasper

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by stratref

Illegal shift vs illegal motion, not really a difference, both are 5 yards from the previous spot, but could be declined by the defense if they so choose.

Illegal shift vs false start, on a false start it is a dead ball foul so we (as officials) will prevent the play from starting and automatically assess the penalty, an illegal shift as mentioned above is a live ball foul, and based on the actions during the down could be declined.

Jasper

Someone's going to say it ... might as well be me. The penalty is not automatically assessed, and can still be declined. You just can't decline it in favor of the play as you can on illegal shift... because the play never happens.

And before you say no one would ever do that... we've seen teams decline a DOG taken intentionally on 4th down before - one might decline this penalty in a similar situation (team punting at a spot on the field where the extra 5 might help the punter keep it from going over the goal line).

[Rich]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Someone's going to say it ... might as well be me. The penalty is not automatically assessed, and can still be declined. You just can't decline it in favor of the play as you can on illegal shift... because the play never happens.

And before you say no one would ever do that... we've seen teams decline a DOG taken intentionally on 4th down before - one might decline this penalty in a similar situation (team punting at a spot on the field where the extra 5 might help the punter keep it from going over the goal line).

They'd have to notify me that they didn't want the yards -- I'm not chasing someone down to ask them.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

It's not illegal motion. Illegal motion occurs when one player in motion does not meet the requirements in 7-2-7.

It says, "Only one A player may be in motion at the snap," so if more than 1 player is in motion, doesn't that too violate its terms?

It's an illegal shift, a violation of 7-2-8.

Well, that too. You can call one or the other.

Another reason you can prove logically that it can't be a false start (assuming no quick or jerky motion) is that that would have to be whistled before the snap -- and how can you know it won't be a legal shift, or that there won't be a time out called (or some other action intervene that would prevent play), before the ball is snapped?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

It says, "Only one A player may be in motion at the snap," so if more than 1 player is in motion, doesn't that too violate its terms?

No. 7-2-7 applies to motion. More than one player moving is NOT motion.

ONE player is moving, after all 11 players are set, is MOTION.

TWO or more players moving at ANY time is a SHIFT, not motion.

I don't know how to make it any more simpler than that.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

No. 7-2-7 applies to motion. More than one player moving is NOT motion.

ONE player is moving, after all 11 players are set, is MOTION.

TWO or more players moving at ANY time is a SHIFT, not motion.

I don't know how to make it any more simpler than that.

"In motion" is not a technical term in Fed. It refers to movement, period. You can look in vain for a definition of "in motion" in that rule book; in fact, the only occurrences of that phrase are in 7-2-7, which is not a definition. It just says team A can't have more than one player moving at the snap, and even then there are certain conditions on the movement allowed. So there are various ways to violate 7-2-7, the simplest of which is to violate its 1st clause, namely by having more than 1 player moving at the snap.

Having 2 or more players moving is a shift, but you can't deny that it is also motion, because the ordinary meaning of the word is in use there. Otherwise you could have players shift without moving, which would be ridiculous.

[Reffing Rev.]

Alright, I'll offer the dissenting opinion...
What happens at the snap? Two or more players start moving, so you "could" and I do mean could say it simulates action at the snap, and kill it for a false start. Really, though, you can tell the difference between a player or two shifting and false starting.

I always say, when in doubt between shift/motion and false start: kill it as a philosophy.

If I've got a linemen snapping down as the ball is being set, I'm going to call it a false start. (You can say I'm wrong, but I'm okay with that.

I've got two rationale for shutting it down, in addition to it being what we're told at clinics.
1. Player safety. Obviously A is not going to do this intentionally, there is no advantage, we've now got a bunch of A linemen vulnerable in a stance because the center missed the snap count, and if B is watching the ball then there are vulnerable players, I want to protect them.
2. It's accepted and expected. I usually reject this as a rationale, but we expect the snap to be clean and legal and all the action around the snap to be the same. It looks ugly, kill it. It is bad enough when everyone is set and center goes on 1 and everyone else goes on 2, , if i've got a group shifting when this happens, shut it down.

Dissect and crucify please...

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Reffing Rev.

I always say, when in doubt between shift/motion and false start: kill it as a philosophy.

I've seen a lot of teams where that would kill their entire shift & motion strategy, and cause them to lose some of the edge they have from knowing the snap count. I'll explain one common strategy like that:

There are teams that may line up as team A for scrimmage with one or both halfbacks in either the usual halfback or wingback positions. They commonly start a wingback in motion toward the halfback position and then snap & toss the ball to him. Team B seeing this may try to time their defensive charge by inferring the ball is to be snapped when the halfback is at that place in the motion. To keep them from being able to rely on that inference, team A may have the wingback stop at the halfback position, and continue their snap count. But then team B can infer that the ball will be snapped when the other halfback moves similarly. To keep team B from relying on that inference, team A starts the first wingback in motion and, before completing that shift, has the other wingback also begin such a shift. The idea is to take away the possible keys to team B as to both the direction of the play and the timing of the snap, by having 0, 1, or 2 players in the backfield moving pre-snap.

If you say this is simulating action at the snap, you may be correct, but if this is the type of simulating of action at the snap that the rules are designed to preclude, then in effect you're saying the rules forbid team A from having any advantage from knowing -- and hence from having -- the snap count. You might as well say team A has to announce to team B when they're snapping the ball.

[Sturno]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I've seen a lot of teams where that would kill their entire shift & motion strategy, and cause them to lose some of the edge they have from knowing the snap count. I'll explain one common strategy like that:

There are teams that may line up as team A for scrimmage with one or both halfbacks in either the usual halfback or wingback positions. They commonly start a wingback in motion toward the halfback position and then snap & toss the ball to him. Team B seeing this may try to time their defensive charge by inferring the ball is to be snapped when the halfback is at that place in the motion. To keep them from being able to rely on that inference, team A may have the wingback stop at the halfback position, and continue their snap count. But then team B can infer that the ball will be snapped when the other halfback moves similarly. To keep team B from relying on that inference, team A starts the first wingback in motion and, before completing that shift, has the other wingback also begin such a shift. The idea is to take away the possible keys to team B as to both the direction of the play and the timing of the snap, by having 0, 1, or 2 players in the backfield moving pre-snap.

If you say this is simulating action at the snap, you may be correct, but if this is the type of simulating of action at the snap that the rules are designed to preclude, then in effect you're saying the rules forbid team A from having any advantage from knowing -- and hence from having -- the snap count. You might as well say team A has to announce to team B when they're snapping the ball.

To keep team B from relying on that inference, team A starts the first wingback in motion and, before completing that shift, has the other wingback also begin such a shift. The idea is to take away the possible keys to team B as to both the direction of the play and the timing of the snap, by having 0, 1, or 2 players in the backfield moving pre-snap.

We had a pretty good program here do that a few weeks ago. Must've been a new wrinkle for them because 2 times they tried it out of 3, they were flagged for not resetting for a full second after both were in motion at the same time.

[Sturno]

Originally Posted by Reffing Rev.

Alright, I'll offer the dissenting opinion...
What happens at the snap? Two or more players start moving, so you "could" and I do mean could say it simulates action at the snap, and kill it for a false start. Really, though, you can tell the difference between a player or two shifting and false starting.

I always say, when in doubt between shift/motion and false start: kill it as a philosophy.

If I've got a linemen snapping down as the ball is being set, I'm going to call it a false start. (You can say I'm wrong, but I'm okay with that.

I've got two rationale for shutting it down, in addition to it being what we're told at clinics.
1. Player safety. Obviously A is not going to do this intentionally, there is no advantage, we've now got a bunch of A linemen vulnerable in a stance because the center missed the snap count, and if B is watching the ball then there are vulnerable players, I want to protect them.
2. It's accepted and expected. I usually reject this as a rationale, but we expect the snap to be clean and legal and all the action around the snap to be the same. It looks ugly, kill it. It is bad enough when everyone is set and center goes on 1 and everyone else goes on 2, , if i've got a group shifting when this happens, shut it down.

Dissect and crucify please...

I concur.

[Juxone]

Someone else wrote "I always say, when in doubt between shift/motion and false start: kill it as a philosophy. " I have the same philosophy, it is movement on the line before the snap so it should be treated as a dead ball foul as a matter of player safety. JMHO