RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: Suudy on October 25, 2018, 11:45:50 AM
-
At the Washington State/Oregon game last weekend, there was a play very early in the game where there was an apparent safety (Oregon snapped the ball into the EZ where it became dead). The R initially signaled safety, but there was a flag at the snap. The white hat came on and said (to the effect) "There was an illegal shift, which is converted to a false start." Thus they treated it as a dead ball foul and there was no safety.
Unfortunately, I can't find a link to any video yet. But can you NCAA folk explain to me this case? An illegal shift is a live ball foul, so it seems unclear to me how this can occur.
-
An illegal shift of the false start variety is when the offensive team never gets set prior to the snap including anyone moving in motion prior to all teammates stopping for a "second".
-
An illegal shift of the false start variety is when the offensive team never gets set prior to the snap including anyone moving in motion prior to all teammates stopping for a "second".
Ah. Ok. That makes sense why they called it. That is exactly what happened. As an NFHS guy, that would be a live ball illegal shift and the play would go on.
-
That play (and the one after was interesting as well) :
https://youtu.be/3ocXEw1WMj8 (https://youtu.be/3ocXEw1WMj8)
-
That play (and the one after was interesting as well) :
https://youtu.be/3ocXEw1WMj8 (https://youtu.be/3ocXEw1WMj8)
Thanks for uploading. ;)
And yes, the second play is interesting. They called disconcerting signals on the defense. Now, of course I wasn't on the field, so I don't know what happened. But I didn't see any gestures, so it must have been verbal. Turns out they did the very same in the WSU/USC game as well. Our non-official fan base (I am a Coug) thinks the opponents' coaches are getting in the ear of the official about the shifts and getting these called. I dunno. I doubt it.
Any thoughts on the disconcerting signals call there?
-
Had not seen either play until just now.
Play 1 is a textbook example why, on any potential safety, you should ALWAYS, ALWAYS just stop the clock, confer with any other covering official, and, if there are no mitigating factors, then the R can turn to the press box and signal Safety.
Play 2 is a textbook example of at least the abrupt movement intended to cause a false start. Classic. And coached. May have been disconcerting signals, as well, but we'd have to be the U to know for sure.
Officiated correctly.
Robert
-
If you watch the entire game and all their other games (including last year), you’ll see those defensive shifts are a regular part of their defense. Unless there was a verbal component (which nobody knows except those on the field), I fail to see how play 2 was movement intended to cause a false start.
Here’s a link to the full OSU/WSU game.
https://youtu.be/pzWRzeBornA
Note the frequent use of shifts. Grinch (now at tOSU) installed it last year.
Now, I do think verbal signals if uttered to induce a false start even if coupled with shifts and pretending that they are regular signs is junk. But I fail to see how the kind of shift shown in play 2, absent any verbal signals, is “abrupt movement intended to cause a false start.” I disagree that this is a classic case, especially given the evidence of hundred of other plays from other games demonstrating it is not.
-
If you watch the entire game and all their other games (including last year), you’ll see those defensive shifts are a regular part of their defense. Unless there was a verbal component (which nobody knows except those on the field), I fail to see how play 2 was movement intended to cause a false start.
Here’s a link to the full OSU/WSU game.
https://youtu.be/pzWRzeBornA
Note the frequent use of shifts. Grinch (now at tOSU) installed it last year.
Now, I do think verbal signals if uttered to induce a false start even if coupled with shifts and pretending that they are regular signs is junk. But I fail to see how the kind of shift shown in play 2, absent any verbal signals, is “abrupt movement intended to cause a false start.” I disagree that this is a classic case, especially given the evidence of hundred of other plays from other games demonstrating it is not.
In the safety play, two defensive players move quickly, but not "abruptly." In the following play, three defensive players move very abruptly laterally, and one guy moves abruptly slightly forward. Their movement on this play is truly abrupt, not just a quick, but easy, movement as in the first play. Just because they use movement frequently doesn't give them carte blanche make any movement they want.
End of story.
Robert
-
Ah. Ok. That makes sense why they called it. That is exactly what happened. As an NFHS guy, that would be a live ball illegal shift and the play would go on.
This NCAA rule, whereby an illegal shift before any set formation has been established is a false start at the snap, is fairly recent. The primary purpose of the rule change, I'm pretty sure, was to make such a foul qualify for a ten-second runoff. In the past, the rules did not adequately punish teams in a last-second scenario. Need to spike the ball and can't get all 11 players set? No problem, just do it anyway and take the five-yard penalty, no big deal, now you have plenty of time to run your field goal unit on the field while the referee slowwwwwly announces the penalty.
The purpose behind it makes a lot of sense. It's still a weird rule, though. I used to teach new officials the difference between blow-and-throws versus live-ball fouls thusly: "is it a foul before the snap, or not until the snap?" But that is no longer a valid way of distinguishing them. Not only do we have this illegal shift, but we also have twelve-player substitution fouls where we shut it down when the snap is imminent. Even though the team could theoretically call timeout still. I'm still trying to think of an easy way for a newbie to remember which procedural fouls are blow-and-throws, other than just rote memorizing.
-
In the following play, three defensive players move very abruptly laterally, and one guy moves abruptly slightly forward.
The call was "signals and movement designed to cause a false start." That tells me it was more than just movement. And frankly, movement alone on that play didn't seem like enough to warrant the call, IMO.
Their movement on this play is truly abrupt, not just a quick, but easy, movement as in the first play. Just because they use movement frequently doesn't give them carte blanche make any movement they want.
I don't think the movement on that play was any more abrupt than on any other play. Indeed, the movement was away from the tackle that jumped.
And I do agree that there is no carte blanche for movement intended to cause a false start, even if movement is typical for a team. However, I disagree that this movement alone--absent any signals--was sufficient to be called delay of game on the defense. But like any other judgement call, we are free to disagree.
For the record, this has only been called twice in 2 years since WSU started the pre-snap defensive shifts. And it has never been a factor. With respect to this thread, I was asking only about clarification on illegal shifts being converted to false starts. I got that answer and it makes sense. It is a difference between NCAA and NFHS.
I suggest discussion about movement and disconcerting signals move to the other thread I created.
-
That play (and the one after was interesting as well) :
https://youtu.be/3ocXEw1WMj8 (https://youtu.be/3ocXEw1WMj8)
Excellently officiated, great announcement on both fouls.