False Start OR Illegal Shift?

[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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Sturno

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.

That does happen. Sometimes with all the shifting, which sometimes extends beyond what I wrote above and has one or both of the HBs shift back to WB position, they don't leave themselves much time to snap the ball!

[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

[HLin NC]

Offensive linemen all have their hands on their knees and go into the 3-point on set. Ball is snapped while they are on the way down.

We are getting way off the beaten path. THIS (the OP) is an illegal shift. Nothing about it simulates action at the snap. There should not be any "when in doubt" as there is no doubt.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

"In motion" is not a technical term in Fed.

True... "Illegal Motion" is a technical term with a definition. As is "Illegal Shift". This play is only one of those two things.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

True... "Illegal Motion" is a technical term with a definition. As is "Illegal Shift". This play is only one of those two things.

No, it's both. Do they not have more than one player in motion at the snap? So it violates the 1st term of 7-2-7. Do they not have a shift that has not ended at the snap? So it violates 7-2-8 also.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

No, it's both. Do they not have more than one player in motion at the snap? So it violates the 1st term of 7-2-7. Do they not have a shift that has not ended at the snap? So it violates 7-2-8 also.

Rule book. Clinic. On field Training.

[Robert Goodman]

It's interesting, judging by the sample here, that most officials would signal illegal shift for a violation of both Fed 7-2-7 & 7-2-8. It used to be the other way around, an illegal shift call being pretty rare. (Of course there are violations of 7-2-8 that are not violations of 7-2-7.) The rules didn't change, but apparently officials' fashion did.