Arena Football Comes to Texas HSFB

[TXMike]

 

https://youtu.be/wuCyvhH59IA

[CenTexZebra]

Very similar thing happened in week 11 in a 6 man game played in Blackwell.  No call too

[WCM]

ouch

[Birddog]

Glad I am not the only one who had a problem with that particular play.

[TexDoc]

Oops.

[TXMike]

Glad I am not the only one who had a problem with that particular play.

i suspect half the stadium had a problem with it also       But did it really have anything to do with anything?  Now don't start jumping on me about ignoring obvious fouls if they have no impact on the play.  Not saying that.  Just saying..did the foul have anything to do with the result of the play.  I don't think so.

[Magician]

i suspect half the stadium had a problem with it also       But did it really have anything to do with anything?  Now don't start jumping on me about ignoring obvious fouls if they have no impact on the play.  Not saying that.  Just saying..did the foul have anything to do with the result of the play.  I don't think so.

It's a procedural foul so you don't factor in advantage. You could argue the defense sees him going forward and knows they can't legally snap until he stops or flattens the motion. This should be a flag every time.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

[Kalle]

i suspect half the stadium had a problem with it also       But did it really have anything to do with anything?  Now don't start jumping on me about ignoring obvious fouls if they have no impact on the play.  Not saying that.  Just saying..did the foul have anything to do with the result of the play.  I don't think so.

In this particular case? Probably no. But as this is so blatantly obvious, and like Magician said, it is possible that a defender is fooled to think that the snap is not imminent, I'd want a flag on this every single time.

[TXMike]

I am not saying don't flag   I simply wanted to know if the foul had any effect on the result of the play

[940AC]

The saying goes "call the obvious", and that is obvious. 
Nobody calls a perfect game every time we step on the field, but you definitely want to get these. If the outside receiver flinched, or made a move that simulated starting the play there would have been a flag for FST, and I would treat this as the same. Did it have an effect on the play? Probably not, but again before or at the snap I think one needs to get these as obvious infractions.

[badref]

I have heard that there is either a rule interpretation out there or a philosophy that says this should be called a false start as opposed to illegal motion. Can anyone confirm
this?

[linesman87]

There are fouls that are just a normal reaction to throw on, would be interesting to find out what the 2 wings thought process was in passing on this one.

[mishatx]

I've been in many a pregame where the wings discuss what will consist of an illegal motion and end up deciding on something like a 45-degree rule.  The idea being when a player is running down the line if he drifts a bit toward the NZ they don't want to flag it.  The problem with these kinds of rules is that in a case like this you can get brain lock deciding if he crossed your motion threshold or not, instead of flagging an obvious foul.

[TXMike]

There are fouls that are just a normal reaction to throw on, would be interesting to find out what the 2 wings thought process was in passing on this one.

. You infer  something that is easy to lose sight of  here, two fellows passed on it not just one.

[raballi]

I've been in many a pregame where the wings discuss what will consist of an illegal motion and end up deciding on something like a 45-degree rule.  The idea being when a player is running down the line if he drifts a bit toward the NZ they don't want to flag it.  The problem with these kinds of rules is that in a case like this you can get brain lock deciding if he crossed your motion threshold or not, instead of flagging an obvious foul.

I think that is WAAAAY overthinking and overcomplicating things.  If the player in motion is clearly moving towards the line of scrimmage at the snap it is a violation and must be flagged.

[Welpe]

I have heard that there is either a rule interpretation out there or a philosophy that says this should be called a false start as opposed to illegal motion. Can anyone confirm
this?

If he turns suddenly downfield as if he's simulating the start of the play, it should be shutdown for false start. If he's turning gradually as a part of his motion, like he is here, illegal motion is the proper call.

[Joe Stack]

Yes, it does (or could) create an unfair advantage. The defense sees an obvious foul on the offense and feels that they can take a chance with a blitz or be more aggressive in hopes of creating a turnover knowing that the defense has a free play -- even if the defense commits a foul themselves.

If he turned up at the very last second prior to the snap, the advantage/disadvantage debate might be relevant but here it really isn't.

[TXMike]

1 - I think you are giving the defensive players way too much credit thinking they could think that through   


and 2 - How does the D know the crew WILL flag??  They are taking a big chance

[HoustonRef]

in hopes of creating a turnover knowing that the defense has a free play -- even if the defense commits a foul themselves.

Uhhhhhhh typically if the D has a foul they don't get that TO...hopefully you mean "even if the defense commits a foul" after said turnover.

[HoustonRef]

1 - I think you are giving the defensive players way too much credit thinking they could think that through   


and 2 - How does the D know the crew WILL flag??  They are taking a big chance

Joey "ain't got" Stacks needs a little help on this one.

[TexDoc]

I've never supported blowing illegal motion dead (essentially calling it a false start) because, 1. it isn't a foul until the ball is snapped, 2. it takes away an opportunity for the defense to make a play. 

[Joe Stack]

if the D has a foul they don't get that TO

Never suggested they would, although I will give you my wording wasn't as precise as it could have been. My point was that, at worst, the down is replayed if there is a defensive foul. Also, going for an all out blitz or a strip rather than making a solid tackle CAN allow a big play by the offense. I see I mixed these two independent ideas, causing some confusion.

And no, I don't think its very far fetched. I've seen some pretty well coached defensive HS teams. But whether it is or not doesn't matter. My scenario is one example of where an advantage might be gained. How many times does the defender who's offsides actually make the tackle or totally interrupt the play? We still flag it. I'm all for weighing whether an act creates an unfair advantage, but let's not get ridiculous towards that pursuit.

[EighthMan]

This is illegal motion that turns into a false start by philosophy ....... Nothing good can happen by letting this play continue.