RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: Brian26 on August 29, 2020, 09:18:57 AM
-
Running back gets in a three point stance, after everyone is set and during QB cadence running back gets out three point stance and goes in motion. Is that legal or considered a false start.
-
That's legal, just as long as he doesn't simulate action at the snap.
-
Running back gets in a three point stance, after everyone is set and during QB cadence running back gets out three point stance and goes in motion. Is that legal or considered a false start.
YOUR judgment call. Vast majority of the time, the back's initial step will be forward, before going in motion either way. As long as that initial step is appropriate, not exaggerated or artificially explosive AND there is no instant reaction by the defense (that YOU judge to be artificially motivated), and the action by the back is consistent with similar behavior in similar previous situations there's likely no foul either way (when the defender didn't violate the NZ)
However, (Often coincidentally to critical short yardage situations, or when the back suddenly and dramatically explodes out of his set position, for that 1st step, before going in motion either way, judging the initial movement to be deliberate and potentially intended to draw a defender into the NZ, judging the action as a false start (whether or NOT it successfully drew the defense into the NZ, is an appropriate call). Even when the defense does NOT react, recognizing the intent with a flag, is very likely to eliminate repeated attempts during the contest (by either team).
When that initial movement by the back, does draw the defense into violating the NZ, YOU have to judge whether the violation was caused by the defensive player's anticipation, or the movement of the offensive back, that "drew", the defensive player (whether intentionally, or NOT) into the NZ
-
2, 3, or 4 point stance has no bearing here. As Al correctly notes, the only issue here is the actual motion by the back. If in your judgment the back has made an initial motion that simulates the start of the play and is not a smooth continuous motion then throw the flag.
-
Sometimes I see R's pass on false starts by RB's because they think it's "motion" (or call it illegal motion if it was at the snap). If it's a jerkey movement and you can tell he missed the snap count, shut it down for false start.
-
Let me enter this one for discussion!
https://photos.app.goo.gl/sVotNoYUsH3G4x8JA
-
^flag - That's a false start. Cannot have any abrupt motion that potentially is simulating the start of a play. Here it's pretty clear that the QB's movements are planned since there is no snap and he turns toward the bench after "faking" the snap. IMHO this has to draw a flag.
-
^flag - That's a false start. Cannot have any abrupt motion that potentially is simulating the start of a play. Here it's pretty clear that the QB's movements are planned since there is no snap and he turns toward the bench after "faking" the snap. IMHO this has to draw a flag.
Hello Between the Lines and NVFOA_Ump. That was an interesting video clip and I am not sure I would flag that as a false start. More likely a dead ball encroachment on the defense. I think the defensive lineman was probably drawn off side by the cadence of the quarterback
-
No one on defense should be looking at the QB's head and hands before the snap, especially a nose-tackle whose eyes should be on the ball.
Just sayin'.
-
Hello Between the Lines and NVFOA_Ump. That was an interesting video clip and I am not sure I would flag that as a false start. More likely a dead ball encroachment on the defense. I think the defensive lineman was probably drawn off side by the cadence of the quarterback
Are you serious? When an unexpectedly sharp movement is combined with an equally abrupt and exaggerated cadence, the odds jump from 50/50 to 99/01 that drawing the defense into the neutral zone was an intended result.
The antidote to effectively preventing such nonsense from persisting each time there's a "short yardage" advantage to be gained, is alert the QB you are NOT going to buy into the attempt, whether it's successful OR NOT, and he will bear the consequences, EACH TIME, the very 1st time it's attempted.
-
I will have to ask our association what our stance would be on this play. It is a judgement call In the video clip that is shown we don't know if this clap by the quarterback is something he consistently does or if it was just to draw the defense off sides in a short yardage situation.
We see this clap snap in college ball all the time and I've never seen the offense penalized for a false start but I know high school rules can differ so I understand your stance that you would flag it the first time.
Obviously when a defender enters the neutral zone there has to be a flag but to determine if he was drawn off sides by the clapping? I don't believe most of the linemen would see that. They would hear it though.
-
That's not a clap, that's a false start. It was an act intended to cause B to encroach. 7-1-7b
-
If the QB had been doing this on every snap before this, then I may let it go. On short yardage plays, with no previous actions like this, it is on the QB and I would flag him.
-
That's not a clap, that's a false start. It was an act intended to cause B to encroach. 7-1-7b
If the defensive lineman had not encroached would you still flag it as false start?
-
Depends. If I warned him earlier about it, yes. If this was his first offense and no jump by the D, then I'd do a "talk-to".
-
If the defensive lineman had not encroached would you still flag it as false start?
This is definitely a "I'd have to see it" call.
If the QB claps to signal the snap all game, but then goes "on two" sometime in the 4th quarter -- but it's the same clap he's done all game, if the D jumps, that's on the defense. Functionally, this is no different than the QB saying "Hut".
If the QB exaggerates the fake clap much more than his previous clapping, then that's a false start regardless of whether the D jumps. Same with a verbal call -- if the fake snap is louder or more abrupt and he moves a bit more than usual, that's a false start.
Where's the line between "What he's been doing all game" and "Overly exaggerating to draw the D off"? Well... I'd have to see it.
-
We see this clap snap in college ball all the time and I've never seen the offense penalized for a false start but I know high school rules can differ so I understand your stance that you would flag it the first time.
Allow me to clarify, Derek; regarding the "first time", I would speak to the QB, not necessarily flag him, that would depend on whether the defensive player encroached into the NZ AND how abrupt I judged the QB's motion. However, either way (flag or not) I'd mention to the QB his action was potentially problematic, FOR HIM.
After that it's entirely up to the QB to adjust, or risk consequences. "Forewarned, should be forearmed"
-
He exaggerated a head bob. The clap means nothing. Everything else he did gets the false start flag. As a Quarterback, we worked and worked on voice increase without bobbing the head. If he goes under center and exaggerates the bob,,...flag him. He gets the same flag in shotgun.
-
If we call this a false start we have effectively made a new rule eliminating what is commonly referred to as “on 2.” Football QBs have routinely “faked the snap count” for years by using the term hut-hut. Or some similar verbiage. So, all who advocate for a false start here, are you going to throw the flag for a double hug? Because the first Hut is obviously meant to do what this did.
-
If we call this a false start we have effectively made a new rule eliminating what is commonly referred to as “on 2.” Football QBs have routinely “faked the snap count” for years by using the term hut-hut. Or some similar verbiage. So, all who advocate for a false start here, are you going to throw the flag for a double hug? Because the first Hut is obviously meant to do what this did.
No need for a "new rule". NFHS: 7-1-7 currently provides adequate explanation and guidance. NFHS: 7-1-8 (and 9) offers helpful clarification. It is, however, within the SOLE judgment of the covering official to determine whether "A" has committed, "Any act", clearly intended to cause "B" to encroach.
Any time a game official chooses to exert "preventive officiating" to advise a player that some UNintentional behavior may be misconstrued to suggest intent, to alert the player of accepting the consequence of unnecessary risk and eliminate potential misunderstanding is helpful and constructive, and may serve to eliminate future contentious situations.
-
YOU may have missed my point. Question - have you ever heard a QB give a "Hut" followed by a pause, then another "Hut"? In your opinion, what do you think the first "Hut" was designed to do? Make the defense encroach? If so, then that falls under the "any act designed to make the defense encroach. I for one have never flagged A for that, nor do I intend to. If we go there, then we must outlaw going up to the line on 4th and short and simulating a snap count with no intention of snapping the ball. Because that's clearly designed to cause B to encroach. So then, if that's the way we want to interpret this statement, I submit that whenever A comes to the line and does not snap the ball on the first "Hut," we flag them for false start.
-
YOU may have missed my point. Question - have you ever heard a QB give a "Hut" followed by a pause, then another "Hut"? In your opinion, what do you think the first "Hut" was designed to do? Make the defense encroach? If so, then that falls under the "any act designed to make the defense encroach. I for one have never flagged A for that, nor do I intend to. If we go there, then we must outlaw going up to the line on 4th and short and simulating a snap count with no intention of snapping the ball. Because that's clearly designed to cause B to encroach. So then, if that's the way we want to interpret this statement, I submit that whenever A comes to the line and does not snap the ball on the first "Hut," we flag them for false start.
I agree, that's why you always hear defensive coaches yelling "watch the ball!" on short yardage situations. Everyone knows there is a good chance the QB is going to try and get the d to encroach. You see this at every level of play and don't recall ever seeing FS being called.
-
YOU may have missed my point. Question - have you ever heard a QB give a "Hut" followed by a pause, then another "Hut"? In your opinion, what do you think the first "Hut" was designed to do? Make the defense encroach? If so, then that falls under the "any act designed to make the defense encroach. I for one have never flagged A for that, nor do I intend to. If we go there, then we must outlaw going up to the line on 4th and short and simulating a snap count with no intention of snapping the ball. Because that's clearly designed to cause B to encroach. So then, if that's the way we want to interpret this statement, I submit that whenever A comes to the line and does not snap the ball on the first "Hut," we flag them for false start.
So at what point would you flag a quarterback for false start, what would your criteria be? From the video, I'd be inclined to throw a flag based solely on the hard head jerk.
-
Well, for one thing, a head jerk is not necessarily simulating a snap. Neither is clapping your hands. If it's a lineman, I call simulating action at the snap either firing off, or either rocking back or beginning a step back in pass defense. If it's a back, I call a false start when he begins motion normally associated with movement at the beginning of a play. If he starts forward, or moves quickly to one side in a way that is not clearly motion. IMO, the QB is no different. If he's under center, simulating the snap would be quickly pulling away as if he has the ball. If he's in shotgun, it could be throwing his hands up as if expecting the snap.
-
This is a great topic and has made me really think what I would do if this situation presented itself in a game. I need to know exactly how I would call this. I was reading the rule book and a little further down from 7.1.7.B is 7.6. I read this .....After a huddle or shift, all players of A shall come to an absolute stop and shall remain stationary simultaneously without movement of hands, feet, head or body for at least one second before the snap.
Has anyone every officiated a game where the 'clap' initiated the 'snap'? If so it would be illegal according to Section 7, article 6 and penalized as an illegal shift if another player had been in motion. What about a quarterback who is clapping rapidly in an effort to try and get the center to snap the ball and the ball is snapped during the clapping? Again, this would be illegal and is penalized as an illegal shift if another player is in motion.
I think Calhoun's 'hut-hut' example is very pertinent to this because how can we ignore that 'act' and not the others? The staggered cadence is clearly inteneded to draw the defense offsides. I also agree with ReffJeff and Brian26 that the defensive lineman have no cause to be jumping offside due to any act by a player in A's backfield.
-
If we call this a false start we have effectively made a new rule eliminating what is commonly referred to as “on 2.” Football QBs have routinely “faked the snap count” for years by using the term hut-hut. Or some similar verbiage. So, all who advocate for a false start here, are you going to throw the flag for a double hug? Because the first Hut is obviously meant to do what this did.
Football is a game of deception.
-
IMO, the QB is no different. If he's under center, simulating the snap would be quickly pulling away as if he has the ball. If he's in shotgun, it could be throwing his hands up as if expecting the snap.
The current language of NFHS 7-1-7 seems perfectly clear, and applies to all "A" players, and is subject to the EXCLUSIVE judgment and interpretation of the covering game official, based on specifically what has been OBSERVED. "One size does not (and will likely NEVER) fit all" and trying to structure a written requirement to cover some infallible universal standard is not only unattainable, it is also UNNECESSARY, as the current verbiage, combined with the exclusivity, of the covering official's informed judgment, EFFECTIVELY deals with the subject.
-
So, would you say that faking a snap count cadence to Attempt to cause B to encroach is a false start? Or no? Because it certainly fits the technical requirements of 7-1-7b
-
So, would you say that faking a snap count cadence to Attempt to cause B to encroach is a false start? Or no? Because it certainly fits the technical requirements of 7-1-7b
I have been sitting here wondering about rule 7-1-7.b and can understand why some officials would think this would be a false start. If we focus on the word 'ACT' we might be able to understand the inconsistencies of the application of this rule. When I think of the word act or action I am thinking there is movement of some kind. When you have the quarterback speaking or yelling is this really an 'action'? So the 'hut-hut' is not an action that would fall under rule 7-1-7.b but the exaggerated head bob or hand clap would be. what do you think Calhoun?
-
Has anyone every officiated a game where the 'clap' initiated the 'snap'? If so it would be illegal according to Section 7, article 6 and penalized as an illegal shift if another player had been in motion. What about a quarterback who is clapping rapidly in an effort to try and get the center to snap the ball and the ball is snapped during the clapping? Again, this would be illegal and is penalized as an illegal shift if another player is in motion.
Derek: Do yourself a BIG favor — never EVER flag what you've just described.
-
Good Lord, hut-hut, hike-hike, go-go are not a false start. Quick body movements simulating the snap are. This isn't that freaking hard.
Derek, you're over-analyzing again.
-
Derek: Do yourself a BIG favor — never EVER flag what you've just described.
pi1eOn Yeah I was just thinking the same thing. I would have a deserved reputation and not a good one! But I will need to be decisive if this situation of the hand snap and encroachment ever comes up. My gut tells me its encroachment and the false start call would be very gutsy
-
Good Lord, hut-hut, hike-hike, go-go are not a false start. Quick body movements simulating the snap are. This isn't that freaking hard.
Derek, you're over-analyzing again.
yeah but to Calhoun's point it is intended to draw the defense offsides......I was trying to reconcile why we don't call that yet the hand clap would be a false start....
-
My point was/is that the action by the QB in the video is nothing more, nothing less than a fake snap count, which hopefully none of us would call a false start.
-
So, would you say that faking a snap count cadence to Attempt to cause B to encroach is a false start? Or no? Because it certainly fits the technical requirements of 7-1-7b
It very well "might", and just as likely, "might not" depending on what you ACTUALLY see, and whether YOU determine, it was, " an act clearly intended to cause B to encroach".
If you are determined to find "One size that fits all" this is the wrong place to look.
-
It very well "might", and just as likely, "might not" depending on what you ACTUALLY see, and whether YOU determine, it was, " an act clearly intended to cause B to encroach".
If you are determined to find "One size that fits all" this is the wrong place to look.
If we have come to the point where we are flagging the offense because they are using a hard count to draw the defense offsides then my world is being rocked. I also think when this 'clap and snap' happens there should be a uniform response because otherwise one Friday night they will get flagged and the next they won't so that doesn't look good for any association in my opinion. But in my short time as an official I do not recall any quarterback using a clap snap but I will be on the lookout for it and try to figure out how my association wants us to address it.
-
So I'm with Al and several other comments here. 1st time if no D gets drawn off, a stern talking to. After that a flag every time. This is no two count, this is a flat out false start with one simple clap with virtually no movement and a 2nd clap where he's in a sudden movement from the knees up including the head bob. He didn't do that on clap one so I see no alternative here. 1 warning, then flag. This is way beyond a typical hard count IMHO. If he wants to do a "2 count" he's got to do it without all of the movement.
-
I wonder if the DL who encroached saw the movement you described. Looks tome like he had his head down looking at the ball. If that’s the case, what about the clap caused him to jump? The movement causing B to encroach argument would be more credible if an upright LB had been the one who encroached
-
I was trying to reconcile why we don't call that yet the hand clap would be a false start....
.
Because in this video clip, by this player, it is more than a hand clap.
-
Great discussion! That play was actually the opening play from scrimmage. The link below is play #2, first & 5.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ZcGdTcrnRMyPdSvY8
-
I wonder if the DL who encroached saw the movement you described. Looks tome like he had his head down looking at the ball. If that’s the case, what about the clap caused him to jump? The movement causing B to encroach argument would be more credible if an upright LB had been the one who encroached
If you're comfortable allowing a QB to decide where, and when, to set the line as to what activity (harsh count, feinting or abrupt movement, etc.) may, or may not, draw the defense into a violation, YOU can do that. Or, YOU can decide where, when and how such behavior creates an "unfair advantage" and STOP it. Either choice is EXCLUSIVELY yours to make (and live with).
Many experienced officials will provide some additional leeway, the first time they observe questionable behavior and (when their is NO VIOLATION caused by it) to advise the QB(the behavior was observed and it should not be repeated, which hopefully will avoid further attempts. If however, even that initial attempt draws the intended reaction, or ANY further similar efforts happen YOU (and ONLY You) can decide how to address each.
Consistency is an important factor, but the PRIMARY LEVEL OF CONSISTENCY relates to the game you are currently working, and be CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD by those participants.
-
Great discussion! That play was actually the opening play from scrimmage. The link below is play #2, first & 5.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ZcGdTcrnRMyPdSvY8
This has been a great discussion! It's given me a lot to think about. I've noticed in college football, for example that they seem to ignore the machinations of the QB when he is clapping or moving his feet to ask for the snap, but the rule prohibiting the defense from trying to confuse the offense by calling signals is often enforced, but only when the offense jumps offside.
So the same with the rule 7.1.7.b it seems many officials would only penalize A if B jumped offsides and I don't understand that because it's a penalty regardless if B jumps offside or not. That goes back to the consistency of enforcing the rules and I think each association may address this differently but as long as we are all on the same page it will be a better experience week to week for the team(s) involved.
-
This just in from the (Iowa) State office:
PENALTY ENFORCEMENT- FAKE CLAP. (From a coach) On Friday night it was brought to me at half time that my QB was going to be called for a penalty for trying to draw the defense offsides because of his clap.
Here's what we do. We clap to initiate the center to snap the ball. In doing this, the defense can time up our count. We fake a clap by bringing the hands together but not making the clapping sound. It was verified on film that this is taking place. The officials came back from halftime letting me know that they were calling this a penalty in the future. I asked them what he was doing. They said that he was attempting to draw them offsides. I asked if there was a difference between going on two like other teams do and they said that by rule that could be a penalty as well.
Answer: A fake clap is no different than a QB saying - "Hut, (pause, pause) Hut, Hut - than the snap. If they draw the defense across on the fake clap it is a penalty for encroachment. Now if he bobs his head and is real aggressive regarding a potential snap, I believe the officials can look to see if a penalty can be assessed against the quarterback.
-
it is true that with the clap snap team A effectively loses the advantage they have when running their offense with a count. That is why sometimes teams will fake a clap to try and keep team B off balance. I wonder why coaches use the clap snap in high school. IT's not that noisy that the team couldn't hear the count. I'm thinking they see this on Saturday's so it must be the thing to do.
-
This just in from the (Iowa) State office:
PENALTY ENFORCEMENT- FAKE CLAP. (From a coach) On Friday night it was brought to me at half time that my QB was going to be called for a penalty for trying to draw the defense offsides because of his clap.
Here's what we do. We clap to initiate the center to snap the ball. In doing this, the defense can time up our count. We fake a clap by bringing the hands together but not making the clapping sound. It was verified on film that this is taking place. The officials came back from halftime letting me know that they were calling this a penalty in the future. I asked them what he was doing. They said that he was attempting to draw them offsides. I asked if there was a difference between going on two like other teams do and they said that by rule that could be a penalty as well.
Answer: A fake clap is no different than a QB saying - "Hut, (pause, pause) Hut, Hut - than the snap. If they draw the defense across on the fake clap it is a penalty for encroachment. Now if he bobs his head and is real aggressive regarding a potential snap, I believe the officials can look to see if a penalty can be assessed against the quarterback.
This is exactly to Calhoun's point.
-
For what it is worth, this ruling is in line with the official NCAA interpretation. A 'fake clap' by a player standing in position (no other body movement) is not to be considered a false start. However, a fake clap in concert with a head bob, chucking of the shoulders, thrusting of the hands forward, or any other quick, jerky movement (other than the fake clap) is a false start.
-
This just in from the (Iowa) State office:
Answer: A fake clap is no different than a QB saying - "Hut, (pause, pause) Hut, Hut - than the snap. If they draw the defense across on the fake clap it is a penalty for encroachment. Now if he bobs his head and is real aggressive regarding a potential snap, I believe the officials can look to see if a penalty can be assessed against the quarterback.
No matter how many ways to slice it, the answer's the same. If the QB tries something subtle, YOU perceive as "an attempt to draw B into a foul" (and B doesn't bite), 1st time, NO FLAG and I'd caution the QB I'll flag repeating efforts. If the 1st time does draw B into a foul, I'd flag "A" and issue the same caution.
Repeat efforts (I determine were attempts to draw B into a foul) Flag each time.
-
I have enjoyed the disscussion on this and do agger that just the fake clap and no other movement is not a false start but just like going on two. the question i have and especially on the second clip is did everyone come to an absolute stop with no movement for at least one second?
-
I really wasn’t paying attention so I went back and watched it again. I really didn’t see an issue. Of course, if you want to be technical, the QB may only have paused for ¾ of a second.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I really wasn’t paying attention so I went back and watched it again. I really didn’t see an issue. Of course, if you want to be technical, the QB may only have paused for ¾ of a second.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The play you're viewing is long over, and long ago was called, one way or the other. Not even "All the King's horses and all the King's men" are going to change that, now. If you didn't see anything that YOU considered violates NFHS: 7-1-7, there was NO FOUL. However if the covering officials saw something that he considered an infraction, worthy of shutting down the play, he had every right to call it a violation.
There will NEVER be another play that is 100% exactly the same, or viewed and judged EXACTLY the same. Discussing the principles that factor into appropriate and correct judgments, are important and relevant to future considerations about similar plays, but the final judgments for each unique version of the 10s of thousands similar situations yet to occur should be based on specifically what the covering official actually observes & determines (for each play) and that official's understanding & comprehension of NFHS 7-1-7b. ("Any act that is clearly intended to cause B to encroach")
-
I have enjoyed the disscussion on this and do agger that just the fake clap and no other movement is not a false start but just like going on two. the question i have and especially on the second clip is did everyone come to an absolute stop with no movement for at least one second?
PLAY 1: False Start would be supported. A clap is not the issue. Why there is a foul has already been discussed well in previous posts, it’s the abrupt, exaggerated upper body action.
PLAY 2: An Illegal Shift call would be “Too Technical”.
-
One video he moves his hands in a clap- pretty standard. Other one he moves his shoulders to simulate the snap.
How in the hell that compares to "hut-HUT" (or any other of the usual verbal signal call) escapes me? The rules says any "act" NOT "or verbiage."
One other thing- these videos would be much easier to watch if they were on Vimeo or even YouTube.
-
So you’re saying that calling for the snap is not an act?
-
The rule has changed in regards to the penalty for 2020 but the old 9-5-1d, now 7-1-9, which deals with efforts by the defense-"No defensive player shall use disconcerting acts or WORDS prior to the snap to interfere with A's signals or movements" indicates that the Fed notes a difference, so no it is not an "act"
-
Ok, I'll buy that, even though it's extremely technical. I believe if the defense calls out the snap count of the offense, they have committed a disconcerting "act." Any way, Do you not consider the clap to be parallel to calling for the snap verbally? Because that's what I see, both on Friday night and Saturday. If there is a correlation between those "acts" or word/act, then to penalize A for faking the snap simply because he claps his hands would be the same as penalizing A simply for faking the snap by cadence. Would you agree with that? I do agree that if A is excessively animated in his call for the snap, whether by voice or action, it could be construed a false start.
I also happen to disagree with the "if he hasn't done it all night, then it's a foul" argument. Teams routinely vary the snap count, both in cadence and "actions." We have teams around here who will go on a silent count for 5-6 downs, then all of a sudden call for the snap by clap. Just because he calls for it in a different way doesn't mean the first way is bad, or vise versa.
-
Rules are supposed to be technical. Philosophies and interpretations are what we derive from them. Some rules leave holes, some do not. In the comparison that I provided, the Fed spells out that "acts or words" for B and "act" for A so obviously somewhere along the way the rules writers discerned a difference for what A may do pre-snap.
I don't think anyone here has made an argument that hand claps in and of itself are a false start. Linemen turn nearly halfway around in their stance to get A play from the sideline now and no one is flagging that. No one is arguing that voice inflection or change in cadence is a foul so I fail to see why this comparison keeps arising.
This rabbit hole is getting pretty deep. There is an obvious difference in the QB's actions in the two videos provided. Call it or don't call it, it is your choice.
-
My response was in reference to your snarky comment about where in the hell hut hut came into the discussion. Hut hut came into the discussion because calling out the snap cadence and the hand clap are comparable. If it’s ok for one to be used to try and draw the defense off it should be ok to use the other.
And just because the actions are different doesn’t necessarily mean one or either is wrong.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The rule has changed in regards to the penalty for 2020 but the old 9-5-1d, now 7-1-9, which deals with efforts by the defense-"No defensive player shall use disconcerting acts or WORDS prior to the snap to interfere with A's signals or movements" indicates that the Fed notes a difference, so no it is not an "act"
I completely agree with HLinNC!
-
The rule has changed in regards to the penalty for 2020 but the old 9-5-1d, now 7-1-9, which deals with efforts by the defense-"No defensive player shall use disconcerting acts or WORDS prior to the snap to interfere with A's signals or movements" indicates that the Fed notes a difference, so no it is not an "act"
Might work for a really shady defense lawyer, or a politician avoiding a reasonable explanation, but 9-5-1d (is an apple) and 7-1-9 (is still an orange), although both are rules relating to entirely different aspects of the game.
The verbiage that matters is, 7-17-b, "ANY act is clearly intended to cause B to encroach", as determined EXCLUSIVELY by the covering game official, as decreed by 1-1-9, "The GAME OFFICIALS SHALL HAVE the authority to make decisions for infractions of the rules."
-
Might work for a really shady defense lawyer, or a politician avoiding a reasonable explanation, but 9-5-1d (is an apple) and 7-1-9 (is still an orange), although both are rules relating to entirely different aspects of the game.
The verbiage that matters is, 7-17-b, "ANY act is clearly intended to cause B to encroach", as determined EXCLUSIVELY by the covering game official, as decreed by 1-1-9, "The GAME OFFICIALS SHALL HAVE the authority to make decisions for infractions of the rules."
9-5-1b was simply reclassified from a 15-yard UNS foul to a 5-yard Disconcerting Act foul and is now called 7-1-9 (It can only be committed by the defense prior to the snap) It is an Apple
7-1-7b (not 7-17-b) is a False Start. (It can only be committed by the offense prior to the snap) It is an Orange
-
So, I gotta question about potential false starts in 7-1-7.
SITUATION: Team A comes out and at varying times in the game comes to the line, preliminary sets in a 2 point stance (arms on thighs), QB then says "go". All the linemen go into 3 point stance. QB then rattles off a number and the ball is snapped. No defensive players take the bait.
Coach of Team B wants a false start because O line is not using the same cadence all game long. We tell him there is no foul because no advantage/disadvantage was gained by either team, i.e. no one encroached. He claims they have to do it the same every time or risk being called for false start.
Crew determines this would be correct IF THE DEFENSE WERE ACTUALLY DRAWN OFF-SIDE. Then we would have to judge if it was being done intentionally to draw a foul. Thoughts on this application of the rule?
-
Ah the old "snap down" on 4th and 5 or less. I had an R send my sideline's HC to Jupiter in pre-game warm-ups once when the R warned him not to do that unless he did it every play. Things had been going swimmingly until he did that. HC starts muttering about "G-D officials coming up here from Florida."
I leaned over to one of the assistants and said "Actually he's from Louisiana." A/C cracked up and I got the hell outta there.
-
Old advice suggests , "doing something is not always as significant as "how legally" it may have been done.", especially when the ONLY ONE responsible for making that determination (at least, on a football field) is the covering field official.
-
From 7.1.7 SITUATION A
"These are acts interpreted to cause an opponent to encroach and, therefore, are infractions. It is the intent of the rules to prohibit such acts.
Whether or not the action by A1 draws B into the neutral zone should not be the determining factor in ruling a false start."
I'm not sure you can write this any clearer.
-
From 7.1.7 SITUATION A
"These are acts interpreted to cause an opponent to encroach and, therefore, are infractions. It is the intent of the rules to prohibit such acts.
Whether or not the action by A1 draws B into the neutral zone should not be the determining factor in ruling a false start."
I'm not sure you can write this any clearer.
Perhaps including the ENTIRE ruling might help clarify, " RULING; "False start by A1 in both (a) and (b). These acts are interpreted to cause an opponent to encroach and, therefore, are violations. It is the intent of the rules to prohibit such acts. Whether or not the action by A1 draws B1 into the NZ should not be the determining factor in ruling a false-start foul....... "
-
Perhaps including the ENTIRE ruling might help clarify, " RULING; "False start by A1 in both (a) and (b). These acts are interpreted to cause an opponent to encroach and, therefore, are violations. It is the intent of the rules to prohibit such acts. Whether or not the action by A1 draws B1 into the NZ should not be the determining factor in ruling a false-start foul....... "
Huh?
-
Huh?
There are two types of people in the world. Those who have something to say, and those who have to say something ....
-
There are two types of people in the world. Those who have something to say, and those who have to say something ....
How about, "When YOU (and YOU ALONE) conclude that whatever A did, or said was INTENDED "to cause B to encroach" whether or not any actual encroachment happened, YOU are authorized to call the violation, without concurrence or approval from ANYONE else.
-
Ok captain obvious.
-
Ok captain obvious.
There are two types of people in the world. Those who have something to say, and those who have to say something ....