FS v Encroachment

[AlUpstateNY]

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.

[KDJBBBJ]

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.

[SouthGARef]

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.

[FLAHL]

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.

[Atlanta Blue]

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!

[Logical]

Depending on many factors, could go either way. BUT, both defenders vote for encroachment. Watch their reaction.