Motion question

[bossman72]

He is not a back and only a back can be in motion at the snap. The one second pause rule only applies to lineman who transition to become a back, there is no such rule for the other way around.

He is a back.  He did not set for a second on the LOS to become a lineman.  So he is a back until he stops and sets on the line.

[ElvisLives]

And, you would have his motion (at the snap) be deemed legal?

I don't believe for a second the Rules Committee, now or ever (at least since 1972), would consider this to be legal motion.  If that motion is legal, the can of worms it opens regarding pass eligibility is huge.

If this motion is ILLEGAL (as I believe it is), then everything else is moot.  If not, wow....

Robert

[ChicagoZebra]

He is a back.  He did not set for a second on the LOS to become a lineman.  So he is a back until he stops and sets on the line.

What is your rule reference for this?

[NVFOA_Ump]

He is a back.  He did not set for a second on the LOS to become a lineman.  So he is a back until he stops and sets on the line.

Doesn't come close to meeting the Rule 2 definition of a back so therefore he cannot legally be in motion.  I agree with Robert here, this motion is illegal since he by rule cannot be both a back and on the LOS at the same time.  Once he's on the LOS he's no longer a legal back, and until he sets he cannot meet the Rule 2 definition of a lineman.

Rule 2.27.4.d.1: A back is any Team A player who is not a lineman and whose head or shoulder does not break the plane of the line drawn through the waistline of the nearest Team A lineman.

[ChicagoZebra]

Doesn't come close to meeting the Rule 2 definition of a back so therefore he cannot legally be in motion.  I agree with Robert here, this motion is illegal since he by rule cannot be both a back and on the LOS at the same time.  Once he's on the LOS he's no longer a legal back, and until he sets he cannot meet the Rule 2 definition of a lineman.

Rule 2.27.4.d.1: A back is any Team A player who is not a lineman and whose head or shoulder does not break the plane of the line drawn through the waistline of the nearest Team A lineman.

I agree he is not a back, and therefore cannot be motion. I do not see anything that disqualifies such a player from being a lineman, however. There is no requirement I see to be "set" to be a lineman.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I agree he is not a back, and therefore cannot be motion. I do not see anything that disqualifies such a player from being a lineman, however. There is no requirement I see to be "set" to be a lineman.

I really don't see any need to revisit the hair splitting between set, stopped, in-motion, not in-motion, etc.  We know that only one player, a legal back, can be in motion at the snap.  Everyone else needs to not be in-motion.

[Morningrise]

I really don't see any need to revisit the hair splitting between set, stopped, in-motion, not in-motion, etc.  We know that only one player, a legal back, can be in motion at the snap.  Everyone else needs to not be in-motion.

What makes this question more than just navel-gazing is that the answer could decide whether we have a 15-yard penalty, in addition to the 5-yard penalty we already have.

Consider the next receiver over from the motion man: Is he an end or not? Is he still eligible or not?

Eligible receivers draw a 15-yard flag if they throw a block 1-3 yards downfield.

Ineligible receivers draw a 15-yard flag if they contest a pass downfield against a defender in position.

So it's not just a question of which 5-yard penalty to announce. It could make a bigger difference than that.

[#92]

Ineligible receivers draw a 15-yard flag if they contest a pass downfield against a defender in position.

Do you mean in a way that an eligible receiver would not draw a flag? If so, can you describe an example play?

[NVFOA_Ump]

What makes this question more than just navel-gazing is that the answer could decide whether we have a 15-yard penalty, in addition to the 5-yard penalty we already have.

Consider the next receiver over from the motion man: Is he an end or not? Is he still eligible or not?

Eligible receivers draw a 15-yard flag if they throw a block 1-3 yards downfield.

Ineligible receivers draw a 15-yard flag if they contest a pass downfield against a defender in position.

So it's not just a question of which 5-yard penalty to announce. It could make a bigger difference than that.

Not sure what the issue is here.  I believe that we've agreed that he is not a legal back (he's illegally in motion if he's not in the backfield), and also not a legal lineman (he's "on the line" and linemen can't be in motion).  Regardless of his illegal "position status" if he commits OPI he gets a flag.  Whatever his "position status" (a mugwump?), he does not get an exemption from OPI if he interferes during a forward pass downfield.

[ElvisLives]

We probably won't get a definitive answer or an editorial change until something like this happens in a high profile power 5 game.  But, IMHO, the best thing to do is consider anybody in the line area (between NZ and backfield - yes, this includes "mugwumps" or "no man's land") as being on the line (regardless of his motion or where he may have come from), and consider anybody in the backfield area (not beyond waist of nearest lineman) as being a back (regardless of his motion or where he may have come from). 

If such player is in the line area at the snap, treat him as a lineman, i.e., linemen inside of him are "covered", and he can be eligible/ineligible according to his location on the line and his number.  If he is moving when the snap begins, you either have an illegal shift that converts to a false start (dead-ball), or illegal motion (live ball).  If he covers someone, and that someone commits IDP or ITP, "bad on him."

If such player is in the backfield at the snap, then treat him as a back, i.e., he counts as a backfield player.  If he is moving at the snap, then his motion is either legal (started from the backfield after a shift is completed), or illegal (moving forward or started from the line).  If he is the fifth (or more) back, then you have ILF.

I wouldn't mind seeing an editorial change that not only clears this up (with the results I have described), but also declares such player illegally in motion to be ineligible (from the line or from the backfield).

Until then, if these things happen - get video.

Robert

[Morningrise]

Do you mean in a way that an eligible receiver would not draw a flag? If so, can you describe an example play?

7-3-8-b-2: It is not offensive pass interference... When two or more eligible players are making a simultaneous and bona fide attempt to reach, catch or bat the pass. Eligible players of either team have equal rights to the ball.

We don't throw OPI flags on 50-50 balls... as long as the offensive player is eligible. Which is why I'd like to know if a man illegally in motion along the line covers another receiver up.

[NVFOA_Ump]

...... But, IMHO, the best thing to do is consider anybody in the line area (between NZ and backfield - yes, this includes "mugwumps" or "no man's land") as being on the line (regardless of his motion or where he may have come from), and consider anybody in the backfield area (not beyond waist of nearest lineman) as being a back (regardless of his motion or where he may have come from). 

If such player is in the line area at the snap, treat him as a lineman, i.e., linemen inside of him are "covered", and he can be eligible/ineligible according to his location on the line and his number.  If he is moving when the snap begins, you either have an illegal shift that converts to a false start (dead-ball), or illegal motion (live ball).  If he covers someone, and that someone commits IDP or ITP, "bad on him." ......

Robert

If he's "on the line" and considered a "lineman", don't we have just the single option, false start??

[ElvisLives]

If he's "on the line" and considered a "lineman", don't we have just the single option, false start??

I don't believe so.  The illegal shift that converts to a false start requires a shift - two or more players moving simultaneously.  So, if he is part of a shift and he never stops moving, then, yes, that would be a false start (dead-ball foul), as soon as the snap begins.
But, if the whole team is set  for a second, then this guy - alone -  does his motion thing, then it would be illegal motion (live-ball foul), at the snap.

Robert
 

[#92]

7-3-8-b-2: It is not offensive pass interference... When two or more eligible players are making a simultaneous and bona fide attempt to reach, catch or bat the pass. Eligible players of either team have equal rights to the ball.

We don't throw OPI flags on 50-50 balls... as long as the offensive player is eligible. Which is why I'd like to know if a man illegally in motion along the line covers another receiver up.

Good point.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I don't believe so.  The illegal shift that converts to a false start requires a shift - two or more players moving simultaneously.  So, if he is part of a shift and he never stops moving, then, yes, that would be a false start (dead-ball foul), as soon as the snap begins.
But, if the whole team is set  for a second, then this guy - alone -  does his motion thing, then it would be illegal motion (live-ball foul), at the snap.

Robert

I'm not advocating converting illegal shift to false start, what I'm saying is that if we determine that the player in motion is "on the line of scrimmage" (effectively a "lineman") and is still moving at the snap, then we have a False Start since players on the line of scrimmage cannot be moving at the snap.  IMHO the only player that we can have an Illegal Motion foul on is a back, and the motion player who may have started as a back pre-snap is no longer a legal back in this case if we have determined he's actually on the line of scrimmage at the snap.

[Kalle]

I'm not advocating converting illegal shift to false start, what I'm saying is that if we determine that the player in motion is "on the line of scrimmage" (effectively a "lineman") and is still moving at the snap, then we have a False Start since players on the line of scrimmage cannot be moving at the snap.  IMHO the only player that we can have an Illegal Motion foul on is a back, and the motion player who may have started as a back pre-snap is no longer a legal back in this case if we have determined he's actually on the line of scrimmage at the snap.

If you rule it a false start, it actually becomes a foul immediately that the player goes on the LOS. A lineman in otherwise legal motion is simply IM.

[NVFOA_Ump]

If you rule it a false start, it actually becomes a foul immediately that the player goes on the LOS. A lineman in otherwise legal motion is simply IM.

If we have a wide receiver on the end of the line out near the sideline and he starts to re-position himself as a tight end directly next to the tackle but the ball is snapped before he comes to a stop in his new position, he is clearly still moving in toward his new position next to the tackle, what are we calling?

[Kalle]

If we have a wide receiver on the end of the line out near the sideline and he starts to re-position himself as a tight end directly next to the tackle but the ball is snapped before he comes to a stop in his new position, he is clearly still moving in toward his new position next to the tackle, what are we calling?

IM. It is not simulating the start of the play nor is he a restricted lineman, and the movement is not quick or jerky. None of the provisions of rule 7-1-2-b apply. As he is not a back and he is in motion, he does break rule 7-1-4-b-1.