RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: SouthGARef on September 09, 2016, 10:22:28 AM
-
https://youtu.be/ebo75iVbj9E
7-1-7: It is a false start if (a) A shift or feigned charge simulates action at the snap (b) Any act is clearly intended to cause B to encroach.
3rd and 5, RB abruptly shifts as the QB gives a hard count "go". This would clearly violate both (a) and (b) provisions in my opinion. I would flag as a false start. Thoughts?
-
I'm usually one that leans toward all of these being on the offense, but on this one, maybe not. No one else moved except one back, and his movement was (basically) sideways. Close, but I could see this one being on the defense.
-
I'm usually one that leans toward all of these being on the offense, but on this one, maybe not. No one else moved except one back, and his movement was (basically) sideways. Close, but I could see this one being on the defense.
+1 yEs:
-
I'm usually one that leans toward all of these being on the offense, but on this one, maybe not. No one else moved except one back, and his movement was (basically) sideways. Close, but I could see this one being on the defense.
Emphasis added. That doubt means I can change your mind!
I watched the whole game. They never used this type of "go" to send a motion the entire game. They were sending their men in motion through much more conventional means. But in this 3rd & 5 they chose to do this combined hard count while sending a man in motion at the same time. That's enough action for me to say it meets the 7-1-7 definition of a FS.
This is certainly one where there's some gray area and I can see the encroachment people's side. I just like my side better.
-
Emphasis added. That doubt means I can change your mind!
I watched the whole game. They never used this type of "go" to send a motion the entire game. They were sending their men in motion through much more conventional means. But in this 3rd & 5 they chose to do this combined hard count while sending a man in motion at the same time. That's enough action for me to say it meets the 7-1-7 definition of a FS.
This is certainly one where there's some gray area and I can see the encroachment people's side. I just like my side better.
Bravo SothGA! These "unusual shifts" mystically never occur when it's 3/10....
-
It is A's responsibility to shift or start in motion without simulating action at the snap. My flag is on A for a false start on this play.
-
My problem with calling this a FS is that the nose-guard jumped into the NZ with the ball right in front of him. The snapper didn't do anything to make him think a play was starting. The QB didn't make a head-bob. And, a hard count is certainly legal.
This was probably designed to draw the defense into the NZ, but the defense has to be disciplined enough not to fall for it.
-
This was probably designed to draw the defense into the NZ but the defense has to be disciplined enough not to fall for it.
Then it probably violates 7-1-7b. ;)
-
In NY State, we've been instructed to kill it, as a False Start.
-
Either call is supportable here, but I've got this on the defense. The back doesn't "jump" - he just starts moving sideways. There is no other motion to draw the defense off.
-
I have this on the defense the Hard count is not illegal and the back in motion did not do it in a way that simulated the start of the snap so I have encroachment.
-
This possible scenario is a perfect example of "no 2 plays are alike", and the call depends, exclusively, on what is specifically observed in the particular play you're looking at.
The "hard count" itself is immaterial, and the call, if there is one, should depends on the specific action taken by the back. A "usual" movement by the back going in motion either directly sideways, or stepping forward before turning sideways is a movement the defense is responsible to react properly to.
When that back, makes an explosive or exaggerated movement with that 1st step, in either direction, that produces a violation by the defense, a judgment has to be made whether that specific action was intended to, or had the effect of inducing a defensive violation, and if so, constitutes a dead-ball false start.
What constitutes "explosive" or "exaggerated" or any other descriptive word that suggests a successful effort at creating an UNFAIR advantage/disadvantage, is up to YOU based on what you observe. It's not all that coincidental, how often that movement by a back changes, as the game progresses, in short yardage situations.
-
"no 2 plays are alike",
I concede that if you take the 4th dimension (time) into account, you are technically correct. However, I contend that the following two examples are close enough to "2 plays being alike" as to warrant reconsideration of your repeated use of the phrase:
1. Opening kick off sails untouched into R's end zone, with no illegal contact. A second such kick off by K would qualify as 2 plays being (substantially) alike.
2. 40 seconds left in 4th quarter, 1st and 10 for A with score A 55 - B 7, A1 "takes a knee", but moves forward enough to have the ball placed at the same spot as where it was snapped from. No contact from B. Now 2nd and 10, repeat.
Note that I once saw two snow flakes that were EXACTLY alike. Unfortunately, I did not have a camera available to record this scientific breakthrough.
My next treatise will deal with "one size fits all". Stay tuned!
-
My next treatise will deal with "one size fits all". Stay tuned!
Sounds like you need more game assignments, or a hobby, or something useful to fill your excess spare time.
-
Sounds like you need more game assignments, or a hobby, or something useful to fill your excess spare time.
Hello Pot, meet Kettle! :sTiR:
-
Sounds like you need more game assignments, or a hobby, or something useful to fill your excess spare time.
Wait, where's all the odd, excessive CAPITALIZATION and unneeded bolding and incoherent rambling?
(https://rainalagrand.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/image.jpg)
-
I hate to reopen this can of worms, but given all the comments there appears to be a small divide.
What's everyone's take on the Dallas Shift as it relates to this topic?
https://youtu.be/hAUJ4q5PIvo
My thoughts:
-If they do it all the time, it's legal.
-If they do it only on 3rd & short, 7-1-7b.
-
I haven't seen those old films in years. My first thought was how deliberate the shift was. IMHO, absolutely no movement that simulated action at the snap.
-
My thoughts:
-If they do it all the time, it's legal.
-If they do it only on 3rd & short, 7-1-7b.
No, no, a thousand times no! Using that logic, what do you do on the first play of the game?
If you judge it to be intended to draw the defense offside, it's a foul. Every time, regardless of situation. Doing it all the time makes it illegal all the time if that was their intent.
-
No, no, a thousand times no! Using that logic, what do you do on the first play of the game?
If you judge it to be intended to draw the defense offside, it's a foul. Every time, regardless of situation. Doing it all the time makes it illegal all the time if that was their intent.
10 - 4!
-
No, no, a thousand times no! Using that logic, what do you do on the first play of the game?
If you judge it to be intended to draw the defense offside, it's a foul. Every time, regardless of situation. Doing it all the time makes it illegal all the time if that was their intent.
That's why I read this board. I hadn't thought of the "first play conundrum." It makes my logic inconsistent. Having said that, I've never seen a team breakout their "special shift" on the first play of the game. It's always 3rd & short later in the game.
The consistency of "if you judge it" causes me slight heartburn because I would like consistency amongst our officials. Some judge better than others. Also, this type of shift has been around for a long time, recognized by us officials for many years as a legitimate football shift. Using your logic, if the team sprinkles in that shift a few times in the game without a flag, because we know that most likely isn't called early in the game if they do it for an entire series or so, they're building a level of currency and leniency. Meaning, it's awfully difficult to judge it as a foul late in the 4th when it hasn't been called earlier in the game.
BTW - I'm only harping because it happened 3 times in the 1st half on Friday night and wasn't flagged. The resulting ENC, however, was flagged, and each time it bugged me a bit. It was mentioned at half time by the coach, and I explained that 7-1-7b was interpretive, much to his dissatisfaction. I relayed and discussed with the H & U, but the last time it was done, on 3rd and short, once again drew only an ENC foul.
-
False start.
The rule hasn't changed in years.
From 2008 Points of Emphasis (I keep this handy for such discussions)
"After the rfp signal...and all offensive players have assumed their final set position ..., no player shall make a quick and/or jerky movement... the purpose for restricting such movement is to discourage action designed to cause defenders to encroach.
If the offensive team executes a shift in such a manner that simulates action at the snap, the foul is a false start..."
-
The consistency of "if you judge it" causes me slight heartburn because I would like consistency amongst our officials. Some judge better than others. Also, this type of shift has been around for a long time, recognized by us officials for many years as a legitimate football shift.
Anticipating there will EVER be absolutely uniform judgment related to issues that are NEVER exactly alike, seems more like an error in expectation than one of execution.
-
Anticipating there will EVER be absolutely uniform judgment related to issues that are NEVER exactly alike, seems more like an error in expectation than one of execution.
Thanks. ::)
Because we deal with the rulebook, we often deal with what-ifs and variations. You're right; every play is slightly different no matter how similar they are. It would be nice, however, if there were a way to apply a general rule or philosophy to this sort of play - one better than "if you judge it" - much like is done with a variety of plays at various levels.
Maybe it's an impossibility.
-
It would be nice, however, if there were a way to apply a general rule or philosophy to this sort of play - one better than "if you judge it" - much like is done with a variety of plays at various levels.
Maybe it's an impossibility.
Welcome to the wonderful world of HS football officiating. Lack of consistency is the #1 complaint of coaches around here, and probably with good reason.
As for the OP, when I taught the new officials training class, I relied on the Redding interpretation. "It is the responsibility of an offensive player who moves before the snap to do so in a manner that in no way simulates the beginning of a play."
-
Thanks. ::) Because we deal with the rulebook, we often deal with what-ifs and variations. You're right; every play is slightly different no matter how similar they are. It would be nice, however, if there were a way to apply a general rule or philosophy to this sort of play - one better than "if you judge it" - much like is done with a variety of plays at various levels. Maybe it's an impossibility.
Hopefully not impossible, as there are efforts to, "apply a general rule or philosophy to this (or any) sort of play - one better than "if you judge it". The NFHS Case Book is likely the most consistent source of such philosophies, as is the annual POE details provided annually, as detailed above, plus there are (at least) 48 State level interpreters who reserve the right to decide what should guide judgments in their States.
Considering the unlimited potential of variety between "similar situations", coupled with an equally wide variety of understanding by observers, the difficulty, as previously suggested, may lay more with an unreasonable expectation of some imaginary universal "consistency", than any perceived inability to actually deliver it.
-
The general rule as I see it is. If A is doing it to hopefully get B to encroach then it is on A. If I have to think about it and wonder then it is on A. That is what I have come up with over the years and I think it gives me some consistency.
-
No, no, a thousand times no! Using that logic, what do you do on the first play of the game?
If you judge it to be intended to draw the defense offside, it's a foul. Every time, regardless of situation. Doing it all the time makes it illegal all the time if that was their intent.
I agree and I don't agree.
Football plays don't happen in a vacuum. Context is important. If one of the reasons I'm ruling this foul is a false start under 7-1-7b "designed to cause Team B to encroach" provision, then context is important. If this is something routine for this team and something they've been doing all game, it's probably not designed to cause Team B to encroach - it's just what they do. If they have been sending the RB through "conventional" means all game (leg step, hand signal, etc) and then they bust this out on 3rd and 5 - I think the context is clear and explains whythey did it - in order to cause Team B to encroach.
We have a team in our area that does the Dallas set on every scrimmage play. They've done it since the 60's. Everyone knows they do it. No big deal and it never causes a problem. Likewise, we had a team earlier this year that lined up normal on ever play but then on a 4th and 5 abruptly dallas-sets and the entire team abruptly goes from a 3pt to a 2pt stance.
So while our end goal should be to call similar plays similarly, I don't think we can ignore the context of the game and how it's played.
-
Abruptly = False start on the first play of the game and every play thereafter.
Deliberate movement, without simulating action at the shap, is OK even if they only pull it out on 4th and 4.
-
Abruptly = False start on the first play of the game and every play thereafter.
Deliberate movement, without simulating action at the shap, is OK even if they only pull it out on 4th and 4.
Exactly!
-
Depending on many factors, could go either way. BUT, both defenders vote for encroachment. Watch their reaction.