Motion - but is it legal??

[MidwestVet]

OK, read closely, your "knee-jerk" ruling will likely not be correct.

Normal scrimmage formation, seven players legally on the LOS.  Back A24 is split out wide and clearly off the LOS, then goes in motion toward the formation.  For discussion sake, it appears that A24 is trying to set up for a crack-back block.  After going in motion for a while, A24 is now on the LOS (breaking the waist of the snapper), HOWEVER, at the snap, A24’s motion was not toward his opponents’ goal line.

What do you have? Illegal motion, illegal formation, something else, nothing ??

[AlUpstateNY]

If I'm following you, the motion player is moving along the LOS towards the ball, at the snap.  My "knee jerk" reaction is going to be a Flag for illegal motion, because I consider that gaining an advantage not indended by the concept and restrictions of "motion".

The real question is, is your "creative interpretation" sufficient to persuade me otherwise.

[MidwestVet]

7-2-7 defines 'legal motion' - and from what I observed, and described in this situation, A24 has done nothing to violate this rule.  He was the only one in motion, the motion was NOT toward his opponents goal line, and since he did not start on the LOS, he was not required to be 5 yards deep at the snap.  So I say the motion was legal.  I do think there is a flag however, just not motion.....

[mbyron]

Perhaps you're thinking IF for a lineman whose shoulders are not approximately parallel to the LOS.

[GAHSUMPIRE]

I don't have my rule book handy, but here is my thought (question?) I submit that it COULD be an illegal shift, since he starts out as a back (off the line of scrimmage) and ended up as a lineman (on the line of scrimmage) since he continued in motion and did not "re-set".

I am sure that those more versed in the rules may poke holes in this, but I figured I'd give it a shot.

[MidwestVet]

Mbyron - illegal formation is exactly where I wound up at the end.  I saw this motion executed three times in one game by the same guy - it never looked right, but I didn't know what to call, so I have been researching it. 

A player needs to be either a Back or a Lineman.  In this case he is neither - not a lineman, as you have pointed out because his shoulders are not parallel to the LOS.  But now consider the next twist - what if during the last couple yards of his motion he squares his shoulder up to the LOS?  Legal now?  I tend to think so - even though it still doesn't look right.

[GAHSUMPIRE]

Mbyron - illegal formation is exactly where I wound up at the end.  I saw this motion executed three times in one game by the same guy - it never looked right, but I didn't know what to call, so I have been researching it. 

A player needs to be either a Back or a Lineman.  In this case he is neither - not a lineman, as you have pointed out because his shoulders are not parallel to the LOS.  But now consider the next twist - what if during the last couple yards of his motion he squares his shoulder up to the LOS?  Legal now?  I tend to think so - even though it still doesn't look right.

If the man in motion squares his shoulders to meet the requirements of being a lineman, but continues in motion, does that not then become a false start?

[Jackhammer]

If he's clearly in the backfield and ends up on the LOS how does he not move toward the opponents goal line?

[Jason Kramer]

If he's clearly in the backfield and ends up on the LOS how does he not move toward the opponents goal line?

This.
How did the player move forward without moving forward?

[bigjohn]

http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=8134.0

on the Aloha Clinic videos they call it shaving.

[MidwestVet]

This.
How did the player move forward without moving forward?

We have all seen a tailback go in motion whereby he fist goes forward first toward the LOS, maybe to clear the fullback, then makes a turn, and continues his motion parallel to the LOS.  So in this case the Back goes in motion, but "AT THE SNAP" is now NOT moving forward, but parallel to the LOS.

I can't find anything in Rule 7 that makes it a False Start either.

[MidwestVet]

BigJohn - so what do they say about 'shaving' - does it make the motion legal or not?

[bigjohn]

On the Aloha Clinic Video he says shaving is illegal motion and should be called.

[mbyron]

http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=8134.0

on the Aloha Clinic videos they call it shaving.

I didn't see it in the LOS video. Do you know which video has "shaving"?

[AlUpstateNY]

So in this case the Back goes in motion, but "AT THE SNAP" is now NOT moving forward, but parallel to the LOS.  I can't find anything in Rule 7 that makes it a False Start either.

We have a team, a very successful and well coached team, that uses standard motion, as you describe it regularly throughout the game.  A back takes a single step forward, then turns either right or left and goes in motion-no problem.

Sometimes, however, coincidentally in a critical short yardage situation, the same back explodes out of his set position, for that one step, before going in motion.  Most of us understand what's going on, as do most defenses, and nobody on defense over reacts to the accentuated movement, but when that explosive movement draws the defense into the NZ, the flag is for a false start on the back starting in motion.

[bigjohn]

sorry mbyron, on the 2010 vids

http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=6852.0

ILF, ISH, ILM, and IDP (110 Mb)

[MidwestVet]

bigjohn - I can't get to the Aloha videos right now.  If the coach asks why he is being flagged for illegal motion, how does Aloha suggest responding?  Why is shaving illegal - if the runner is not moving toward his opponents goal at the snap?

[bigjohn]

http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=7914.msg75850#msg75850


PM Sumstine maybe he can explain it better.

[JimD]

OK, read closely, your "knee-jerk" ruling will likely not be correct.

Normal scrimmage formation, seven players legally on the LOS.  Back A24 is split out wide and clearly off the LOS, then goes in motion toward the formation.  For discussion sake, it appears that A24 is trying to set up for a crack-back block.  After going in motion for a while, A24 is now on the LOS (breaking the waist of the snapper), HOWEVER, at the snap, A24’s motion was not toward his opponents’ goal line.

What do you have? Illegal motion, illegal formation, something else, nothing ??

I don't have my rule book with me and it's kind of hard to picture, but it sounds like an illegal shift.  A24 shifts from his initial position as a back to a new position as a lineman without ever pausing for one second.  At the snap, if he's on the line he is a lineman - correct?  If he's on the end of the line, and covering A88 then A88 would be ineligible.  This would be an illegal shift.

[bigjohn]

ART. 7 . . . Only one A player may be in motion at the snap and then only if
such motion is not toward his opponent’s goal line. Except for the player “under
the snapper,” as outlined in Article 3, the player in motion shall be at least 5 yards
behind his line of scrimmage at the snap if he started from any position not clearly
behind the line and did not establish himself as a back by stopping for at least
one full second while no part of his body is breaking the vertical plane through
the waistline of his nearest teammate who is on the line of scrimmage.

I think Illegal Formation though because of This Article.

ART. 3 . . . Of the players of A who are not on their line at the snap only one
may penetrate the vertical plane through the waistline of his nearest teammate
who is on his line. He must have his hands in position to receive the ball if it is
snapped between the snapper’s legs but he is not required to receive the snap.
Any other player(s) must be in legal position as a back. (See 2-32-3)

[mbyron]

bigjohn - I can't get to the Aloha videos right now.  If the coach asks why he is being flagged for illegal motion, how does Aloha suggest responding?  Why is shaving illegal - if the runner is not moving toward his opponents goal at the snap?

Shaving is clearly defined in the video as moving toward the LOS, which is why it's illegal motion. "'Shaving the line' means shortening your distance between yourself and the LOS."

bigjohn has misapplied the concept to the case under discussion, where the motion man is NOT moving toward the LOS.

http://www.refstripes.com/Aloha/2010ILF.ISH.ILM.IDP.wmv, Play 11.

[bigjohn]

OK, Do you agree that OP is illegal or not then? Is it IF?
He was shaving at one point in his motion though, don't you think?
I never said the back was shaving at the snap, I was answering the question asked by Jason Kramer.

[dch]

Big John got it right.  Rule 7-2-3 clearly defines illegal formation and by the various player designations of Rule 2-32 the man in motion "along the line" is neither a back nor a lineman.  Therefore the formation is illegal.  Live ball foul.

[bigjohn]

http://forum.officiating.com/football/10647-illegal-motion-illegal-shift.html

[VALJ]

Illegal shift is defined as two or more players in motion at the same time and we don't have all A players set at the same time for a full second, isn't it?  Can't be an IS.  I don't have it as illegal motion, either, unless he's actually moving forward at he snap.  I'll buy an illegal formation, though.