RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: TXMike on October 09, 2010, 05:10:05 PM
-
Very troubling situation last night. Team A is a team that frequently snaps on the first sound. Team B LB would periodically yell "Move" once the offense was set. 1 or more defensive linemen would quickly slide left or right. However, frequently 1 or more Team A players would move forward at the same moment. 7 false starts against Team A, most of which were at critical moments. Team A's coach was beside himself trying to get us to flag the defense. If the defense used any sounds that were like those used in the snap count, I see the foul. If they yelled "Move" and nobody was actually moving, I see the foul. But the way they were doing it seems to skirt the rules. Has anyone ever flagged defense for disconcerting signals? If so, what were they doing?
-
Once it became obvious that Team A is using a first sound snap count and team B's defensive signals were interfering with that process, IMO it time to put a stop to the team B signaling in that manner.
The rule that the defense must comply with IMO is pretty clear (7.1.5.a. Defensive Team Requirements) " 3. No player shall use words or signals that disconcert opponents when they are preparing to put the ball in play. No player may call defensive signals that simulate the sound or cadence of (or otherwise interfere with) offensive starting signals."
That fact that they were apparently legimitate defensive signal calls does not matter, what matters is that they did in fact interfere with the Team A signal process, therefore it's a Team B foul.
-
Sorry NVFOA_Ump
I can't follow the logic. Are you saying that if team B make a legitimate defensive cadence (and I cannot see the word move simulating an offensive one) and the offence reacts this is a call on the defence for disconcerting signals. Following that to it's conclusion all the offence needs to do is 'false start' at any defensive sound to be awarded 5 yards.
Would you call the defence every time they shouted move and there was no reaction from the offence? This penalty is one regardless of if the offence reacts or not and so you should do.
It would be interesting to know if the defensive team used the same calls the week before.
-
I'm not sure why is there even any question here. This rule is one of the very few in the entire book that leaves no room for interpretation. It says very clearly (the actual wording in the rule) " ... No player may call defensive signals that simulate the sound or cadence of (or otherwise interfere with) offensive starting signals ... "
Even if the defensive calls have been the same for years, when they clearly interfere with the offensive signal calling, they need to change what they are doing. There is no "legitimate defensive cadence" that directly results in a false start more than once, much less "7 false starts .... most of which were at critical moments". We could flag team A the first time when it happens but team B would get a stern warning to modify their calls since the rules give team A a 100% right to offensive starting signals that are not interfered with by B, otherwise the 2nd time the same thing happens, the flag goes to B.
-
We could flag team A the first time when it happens but team B would get a stern warning to modify their calls since the rules give team A a 100% right to offensive starting signals that are not interfered with by B, otherwise the 2nd time the same thing happens, the flag goes to B.
I think this gets into a grey area - we're being asked to interpret intent of signals. If the defence is pondering a blitz, and the middle linebacker, up on the d-line, turns around calls it off with "cancel," at the last minute, before backing away do we flag them if the offence flinches for an obvious change of defensive set?
What if there's a safety blitz planned in addition to a blitz package, and the middle linebacker opts to call that off with a code-word, "blue! blue!" but doesn't turn in the safety's direction, and the offence flinches? Is the defence not allowed some measure of communication as well? Why would we penalize the defence for the same rights we grant the offence?
What if the offence sends out a bunch formation right, and the linebacker calls out "roger, roger!" to call for a defence against a strong-right formation? If the offence flinches, is that a penalty?
Now, if the defence is yelling "hut! Hut" or some other sound that simulates the offensive cadence here, sure. But the above three examples are pretty darn common, I'd think.
Your "shift" situation seems greyer. I would like to know if this was done the week before. In the same vein, it has the potential to be more legal than not, but if concocted to screw up the offence, clearly otherwise.
<devil's advocate>
Defensive communication ought not to be silenced just because the offence is doing something odd, like a first-sound snap. Heck, the solution here is simple, really: the offence shifts to a "standard" cadence to avoid the procedure infractions.
</devil's advocate>
And just for giggles:
What if the offence calls out an option play at the LOS, with the quarterback calling out "hamburger! hamburger!" and the tight end confirming with the counter-phrase "cheeseburger!" On the fifth or sixth time they do this, the defensive end pipes up with "Large fries!" (This actually happened in a game last week, fwiw. Everybody cackled, no coaches went ballistic, and the game continued as normal.)
-
I think this gets into a grey area - we're being asked to interpret intent of signals.
No interpretation if intent needed. The rule simply says that B cannot interfere with A's signal calling, there's no "intent" component in the rule. The case play here is black and white IMO - they are clearly interfering. Further, A never has to change their signals, if there's an interference with signal calling related to the actual snap, B has to change their signal calling.
-
Kids false start all the time without the defense sayinjg or doing anything. How can you determine that it was what the defense did that made them jump?
-
I do not think the intent of the rule was to "handcuff" the defense by not allowing them to adjust to formations. The defense has as much right to hide then adjust their alignment as the offense (actually more since they are not restricted by shift rules). Because the offense has chosen to use first sound they should not be allowed to prevent the defense from adjusting. We have a OC here that uses first sound of the defense as his snap count in an attempt to catch the defense during a shift.
-
Do we determine B's "intent" when a B player jumps into the NZ and an A threatened A player immediately responds and moves? If an A player immediately responds to a B verbal call that follows A being set and ready to snap what's the difference? And while I could see some leeway regarding one or two instances during an entire game, the problem posted in the original case play is flat out flagrant - that's 100% against 7.1.5.a.3 and IMO must be called.
-
I have to 100% disagree.
The offense is free to snap it on any number - including 2, 3 or 5. There is no restriction saying they have to go on the first sound on every play. Their collective decision for willingly snap it on the first sound cannot place a de facto gag order the defense's ability to call their own signal.
The defense is calling out a signal with a reasonable word - something other than "HUT!" and they are actually moving. It isn't an empty command. There is always the risk (if they are doing this movement for the sole reason of making the offense false start) that they will move into a defensive alignment that now places them at a disadvantage to defend the formation and play in front of them.
The game is full of adjustments by each side. Defense is calling out a signal? Go on 2. Go on a silent count. Do something to counter it legally. Offense is going on first sound all game and they all of a sudden go on 2 and you get caught offside? Too bad - adjust to them now.
My bar is very high for a disconcerting signals foul. I, or the umpire, have to hear words that mimic that QB's chosen cadence - HUT, or GO, or READY - and I have to see an offensive player react.
-
I'm not sure why is there even any question here. This rule is one of the very few in the entire book that leaves no room for interpretation. It says very clearly (the actual wording in the rule) " ... No player may call defensive signals that simulate the sound or cadence of (or otherwise interfere with) offensive starting signals ... "
Even if the defensive calls have been the same for years, when they clearly interfere with the offensive signal calling, they need to change what they are doing. There is no "legitimate defensive cadence" that directly results in a false start more than ounce, much less "7 false starts .... most of which were at critical moments". We could flag team A the first time when it happens but team B would get a stern warning to modify their calls since the rules give team A a 100% right to offensive starting signals that are not interfered with by B, otherwise the 2nd time the same thing happens, the flag goes to B.
You are interpreting "or otherwise interfere with" to be it's own independent clause. It's not. The defense may not simulate the sound or the cadence in a way that interferes with the offensive cadence. The rule in no way restricts the defense from calling their own signals that do not simulate the sound or cadence of the offensive signals.
You said, "This rule is one of the very few in the entire book that leaves no room for interpretation." Clearly that's incorrect, as your interpretation is one not intended by the rule.
-
I have to 100% disagree.
The offense is free to snap it on any number - including 2, 3 or 5. There is no restriction saying they have to go on the first sound on every play. Their collective decision for willingly snap it on the first sound cannot place a de facto gag order the defense's ability to call their own signal.
The defense is calling out a signal with a reasonable word - something other than "HUT!" and they are actually moving. It isn't an empty command. There is always the risk (if they are doing this movement for the sole reason of making the offense false start) that they will move into a defensive alignment that now places them at a disadvantage to defend the formation and play in front of them.
The game is full of adjustments by each side. Defense is calling out a signal? Go on 2. Go on a silent count. Do something to counter it legally. Offense is going on first sound all game and they all of a sudden go on 2 and you get caught offside? Too bad - adjust to them now.
My bar is very high for a disconcerting signals foul. I, or the umpire, have to hear words that mimic that QB's chosen cadence - HUT, or GO, or READY - and I have to see an offensive player react.
Well said, I completely agree with you. We can't completely handcuff the defense from calling their own signals and I think it is quite unreasonable to expect them to call out no signals at all.
-
I did not at any time suggest that B must remain silent, but I did say that when A has done their ready, down set, or what ever they do, that B cannot in virtual sequence then bark out the next call as described in the case play.
I see no conflict whatsoever with B's right to call defensive signals but also saying that they cannot do what's described here. IMO there is no judgment needed when A is responding directly to B's call, and doing it multiple times - that's interfering with A's snap count.
-
Roy - the offensive team that knows this is your judgment will jump every time Team B gives a signal so they will get a free 5 yards each time. That ain't right.
-
I had this Friday night. The defense clearly yelled Shift right after the QB made his first sound. The offense jumped in reaction to the sound of the D. I felt like it was sort of tricky...but the wording clearly was Shift. I just turned to the middle LB who made the call and told him that since there was nobody in motion all night, that he would need to make his call prior to the QB starting his cadence. He agreed and we didn't have any further issues.
-
Did the O use "shift" ever in their cadence? When the LB yelled, did nyone from D shift?
-
So we flag team A 7 times on critical 3rd down plays (the original thread posting) since we don't think that B is interfering with A's right to have a fair chance at a snap count with out defensive interference? Sorry Mike, but IMO that's beyond weak, and not close to being in compliance with the rules or with the intent of the rules.
-
I never said it was always on 3d down. Just said it was at critical moments. Anytime you back the O up 5 yards you are affecting them on that series.
Part of what was going on was the kids had been coached all week to expect that from the defense. They had it so ingrained in their heads that they were thinking about that more than about what they should be doing. There were times when there was a defense call but no reaction from the O.
-
Having played offensive line at the collegiate level and now officiate at the U position at the high school level, it all comes down to what is being said. As an offensive lineman, I know what my go signal is and what my signal caller sounds like. The defense can make all the calls and movements they want. As long as the go signal isn't the same or sounds the same I always knew when to go even in loud games when hearing was tough. If you think its the same, flag it. When I can tell the difference between the signals standing at my position then we have nothing. This happened in my game last week. The calls were similar, but I could tell the difference pretty easily. These players hear their signals hundreds of times everyday in practice. They know what they sound like. Its pretty easy to tell if this is the normal call or a call to entice the offense. I talk with LB like blindref757 does.
-
Did the O use "shift" ever in their cadence? When the LB yelled, did nyone from D shift?
No and Yes to those two questions.
The first time they did it, it worked. The O jumped and we flagged them for false start. It was at a critical time...3rd and 2. They took notes and they didn't jump again. The D tried it again in the 4th quarter a couple of times...the LB gave his signal simultaneous with the QB. Wasn't an issue.
-
Has anyone ever flagged defense for disconcerting signals? If so, what were they doing?
Yes, I have flagged it maybe 4 or 5 times in 25 years of officiating. Every time the defence were yelling HUT or something real close to it.
-
I've called it 2-3 times in 10 years. Defense 'jumping' the QBs calls (either SET or HUT).
As for NVFOA_Ump's comments - I think he is being way too hard on the defense. They need to be able to communicate as well. They are not INTERFERING with the offensive start signal, they are doing their own signal. Since the Offense decided to go on first sound they need to make sure they can hear that it is the first sound of their team!
-
What's the deal?
IF the offense are starting at ANY acoustic signal, then surely the snapper will snap the ball as soon as he hears the "move".
Therefore the only bad thing that can happen is a muffed snap by the QB, but NOT a false start.
Since the snapper obviously did not react to the "move", the claim that the offense starts at any sound is bogus.
If they want to deprave the defense from using ANY acoustic signal by making that bogus claim, they have a big problem with understanding the spirit of the rules and that thing called sportsmanship.
Throw the IDIOT "coach" out of the stadium ASAP.
-
What's the deal?
IF the offense are starting at ANY acoustic signal, then surely the snapper will snap the ball as soon as he hears the "move".
Therefore the only bad thing that can happen is a muffed snap by the QB, but NOT a false start.
Since the snapper obviously did not react to the "move", the claim that the offense starts at any sound is bogus.
But the snapper is just a foot two directly in front of the QB - IMO a lot harder for the tackles and tight end to differentiate the call that they hear coming from the same direction and area as the QB.
-
But the snapper is just a foot two directly in front of the QB - IMO a lot harder for the tackles and tight end to differentiate the call that they hear coming from the same direction and area as the QB.
Again, why would we penalize the defence? If playing a team with a normal cadence does not net a penalty for simply calling "shift," why would the defence be penalized for engaging in the same actions in a different game, just becuase the offensive team is using a first-sound snap policy? An act that is legal in one game must be legal in the next. In that light, I'd be tempted to suggest that the offense must adapt, not the defense. If the O flinches on a legitimate "shift" order, the O gets its illegal procedure/false start.
I stress - an act that is legal in one game, ought not to be illegal in another. Consistency. It's what coaches want: and we should strive to deliver it.
-
When there's a clear conflict between team signals as there was here don't the rules indicate that the defense must modify their signal calling methods? Said differently, does the offense have any priority at all when it's clear that the method the D is using for signals is repeatedly causing a problem?
-
why is it the defense that is causing the problems....maybe in all the other games this team has played the defensive "shift" cadence has been just fine, now they play against a team that wants to go on the first sound...it appears to me that the offense is causing the issue...to further the argument, I would guess that in each game this offense has played the first sound cadence in your opinion would force the defense to change their routine so as to not make a sound before the offense....we are there to make sure neither team gains an unfair advantage. Forcing every defense to accomodate this cadence is giving the offense an unfair advantage in my opinion.
Let the defense call their signals as long as they don't mimic the offensive signals
-
The defense should have the ability to call adjustments based on offensive formations as they see them or as they change the intent of the rule is to prevent them from making sounds similar to the offense but should not be prevented from making any sound. This gives the offense an unfair advantage by taking away the defense's ability to make those adjustments. We don't flag the offense for a hard count trying to make the defense jump. I think i this situation we follow this same judgement. Since they have the right to make those adjustments. I have flagged the defense for saying hut and for just making gut sounds like UGGHH. but wouldn't for words that are designed for the defense to adjust or make the offense think they are going to adjust provided they don't have the same type of sound or the long vowels the offense uses for the signal to snap. Offense has to adjust on this one.
-
7-1-5a3 (FR-99) "...No player may call defensive signals that simulate the sound or cadence (or otherwise interefere with) offensive starting signals."
IMHO, that means the defense can't create a false start by yellin' or hollerin', no matter what they're yellin' or hollerin' about.
-
7-1-5a3 (FR-99) "...No player may call defensive signals that simulate the sound or cadence (or otherwise interefere with) offensive starting signals."
IMHO, that means the defense can't create a false start by yellin' or hollerin', no matter what they're yellin' or hollerin' about.
So if a linebacker sees an end coming across and yells "motion! motion!" or, alternately, "Base! Base" to shift defense, and the o-line goes, you'll flag the defense?
-
So if a linebacker sees an end coming across and yells "motion! motion!" or, alternately, "Base! Base" to shift defense, and the o-line goes, you'll flag the defense?
If the signals by the defense disconcerts the offense, then yes, it is a foul on the defense. See 7-1-5a3.
-
If the signals by the defense disconcerts the offense, then yes, it is a foul on the defense. See 7-1-5a3.
And the supervisor of your conference would support that interp? If so, there are quite a few of us here who would be getting dinged
-
And the supervisor of your conference would support that interp? If so, there are quite a few of us here who would be getting dinged
For following the rules? The rules very clearly and unambiguously IMO say that the offense has priority in calling signals. The defense also has a right to call signals but again IMO and based on the written rules, when there is a problem/conflict the offense has the right to be calling signals without interference. The defense must modify what/how they are calling their signals to avoid conflicting with the offensive teams play calling signals.
What interpretation does 7-1-5-a-3 "No player may call defensive signals that simulate the sound or cadence (or otherwise interfere with) offensive starting signals ." need? It's clear and unambiguous - when there is any form of conflict in play calling signals, the defense must change them.
-
So far there are 2 of you "following the rules"...just saying...........
-
And the supervisor of your conference would support that interp? If so, there are quite a few of us here who would be getting dinged
You let them do it seven times. Maybe you could have stopped it from getting out of hand after the second or third or fourth or fifth time.
Just trying to help.
-
Yep and in retrospect I would have let them do it 17 times. They were calling their own signals and were legally moving everytime they did so. The offense had chosen to go on 1st sound and if they were so intent in getting off the ball quick, they place themselves at risk by not recognizing their QB 's voice and words said
-
Again, why would we penalize the defence? If playing a team with a normal cadence does not net a penalty for simply calling "shift," why would the defence be penalized for engaging in the same actions in a different game, just becuase the offensive team is using a first-sound snap policy? An act that is legal in one game must be legal in the next. In that light, I'd be tempted to suggest that the offense must adapt, not the defense. If the O flinches on a legitimate "shift" order, the O gets its illegal procedure/false start.
I stress - an act that is legal in one game, ought not to be illegal in another. Consistency. It's what coaches want: and we should strive to deliver it.
You are way off. The defense can't say things which mess with the offense's signals. Not every offense uses the same signals so what the defense cannot say will be different in every game.
-
What interpretation does 7-1-5-a-3 "No player may call defensive signals that simulate the sound or cadence (or otherwise interfere with) offensive starting signals ." need? It's clear and unambiguous - when there is any form of conflict in play calling signals, the defense must change them.
"Trips!"
"Base"
"I formation"
"Watch the draw"
"Base!"
"Larry! Larry"
"Blue! Blue!
Which of the above mirror offensive signals, or mirror the sound or cadence of any offence you've worked with? Which of these would you flag?
The original post, if we may recall, dealt with a first-sound offence, and discussions that the defence was causing false-start fouls by calling "shift," a phrase that was not used by the offence.
-
"Trips!"
"Base"
"I formation"
"Watch the draw"
"Base!"
"Larry! Larry"
"Blue! Blue!
Which of the above mirror offensive signals, or mirror the sound or cadence of any offence you've worked with? Which of these would you flag?
The original post, if we may recall, dealt with a first-sound offence, and discussions that the defence was causing false-start fouls by calling "shift," a phrase that was not used by the offence.
It doesn't matter what they say, it only matters that they caused a false start by saying it. ANY obvious attempt by the defense to cause an offensive player to false start is a foul.
That's the answer to Mike's original question.
-
"No player may call defensive signals that simulate the sound or cadence of (or otherwise interfere with) offensive starting signals ."
Again, some of you are reading the parenthetical as an independent statement. It is not, it is descriptive of the preceding phrase.
Read the rule without the parenthetical phrase:
"No player may call defensive signals that simulate the sound or cadence of offensive starting signals ."
The "otherwise interfere with" does not stand on its own, it is meant as a further descriptor of the preceding phrase. So the defense cannot simulate the sound or cadence of the offensive signals in order to interfere with the offense. We all agree that would be a penalty.
But there is NOTHING in the rule that prohibits the defense from calling their own signals which do NOT simulate the sound or cadence of the offensive signals.
-
"Shifting in a way that simulates the start of a play or employing any other unfair tactic for the purpose of drawing one's opponent offside [is an unethical practice]. This can be construed only as a deliberate attempt to gain an unmerited advantage."
If it is obvious that the defense is attempting to gain an unmerited advantage by using signals that disconcert the offense, it is a foul. (Disconcert: to throw into confusion; to disturb the composure of --Merriam Webster).
-
"No player may call defensive signals that simulate the sound or cadence of (or otherwise interfere with) offensive starting signals ."
Again, some of you are reading the parenthetical as an independent statement. It is not, it is descriptive of the preceding phrase.
Read the rule without the parenthetical phrase:
"No player may call defensive signals that simulate the sound or cadence of offensive starting signals ."
The "otherwise interfere with" does not stand on its own, it is meant as a further descriptor of the preceding phrase. So the defense cannot simulate the sound or cadence of the offensive signals in order to interfere with the offense. We all agree that would be a penalty.
But there is NOTHING in the rule that prohibits the defense from calling their own signals which do NOT simulate the sound or cadence of the offensive signals.
Can't agree with the comment. The word otherwise I agree is related to the preceding "simulate the sound or cadence of" but "otherwise interfere" here means "interfere in another manner". If the defensive calls are directly resulting in repeated (read more than once) pre-snap team A movement, my first flag is on the offense with a warning to the defense, my second and each subsequent flag is on the defense until they change the methods they are using to call their plays.
-
Can't agree with the comment. The word otherwise I agree is related to the preceding "simulate the sound or cadence of" but "otherwise interfere" here means "interfere in another manner". If the defensive calls are directly resulting in repeated (read more than once) pre-snap team A movement, my first flag is on the offense with a warning to the defense, my second and each subsequent flag is on the defense until they change the methods they are using to call their plays.
I agree with your understanding but not the action. Why penalize the offense for what you have already deemed as the defense's act? If you feel it necessary to "warn" the defense then the penalty should be on the defense.
-
It doesn't make sense because the entire argument does not make sense. He is admitting the defense has the "right" to do this but as soon as he thinks they are exercising that right he wants to flag them. Under his interpretation, all the offense has to do is wait for the defense to say anything and then flinch. Free 5 yards every time.
-
I agree with your understanding but not the action. Why penalize the offense for what you have already deemed as the defense's act? If you feel it necessary to "warn" the defense then the penalty should be on the defense.
Because based on the original case play, we probably can't judge intent the first time it happens, and it's just possible that the defensive call didn't result in the false start. Our standard practice is to warn the defense if we believe that the defensive call could be interfering with or conflicting with the offensive signals. If they do it again, it's intentional and it's their flag.
-
If they do it again, it's intentional and it's their flag.
So if an offense is constantly going on the first sound, you will deprive the defense from calling any signals after the offense has set?
-
Due to the lack of a distinct "sound or cadence of offensive signals", there is nothing that that can be simulated.
-
Due to the lack of a distinct "sound or cadence of offensive signals", there is nothing that that can be simulated.
If you can't see any difference between the defense barking out a loud staccato "move" just after the offense has set and is waiting for the QB's snap call and a defensive signal call that most defenses use then so be it. IMO there's a big (and easily discernible) difference, and the rules say the defense cannot interfere with the offensive team's signal calling.
-
If the offense uses "move" as their snap count (and has done so before), foul on the defense.
If not, bad luck for the offense.
I'm simply sick and tired of idiots disguised as "coaches" who see their primary task in life in bending the rules to their favor.
Like the one who tried to read into 1-3-2-c that the visiting team MUST play with the balls provided by the home team.
-
I think we have to use common sense here. If the defense is calling their own signals and those signals aren't something like "hut!" or "go!", why would we want to nitpick? In the times I've seen this, it's obvious when the defense is trying to mess up the offense with their "signals."
Also, if the offense is going on the first sound and the defense says "nickel", why would we have a false start? The ball would be snapped on the first sound and everything would be good. ;D
-
In my game it was because half of the offensive line (to include the snapper) knew they were going on the 1st sound OF THEIR QB while the other half of the line apparently did not get that message and thought it was just "any old first sound". ;D If you don't know what your QB's voice sounds like you have a bigger problem than a false start.