Why "Encroachment" when it's NOT enroachment : 6-1-3bc PEN

[Logical]

Surprised this hasn't been discussed, but I can't find it ...

"Encroachment" signal for new free kick FORMATION fouls; really?
This is going to cause confusion; I'd like to think this was accidentally connected with 6-1-3aPEN (which actually is encroachment).
I believe it should've been connected with 6-1-2 signal: "Free Kick Infraction" using IP signal.

Signalling encroachment, when encroachment (as defined in Rule 2) did not occur, WILL cause confusion (already saw it on ESPN2 HS game over weekend).

Thoughts?

[ECILLJ]

The logic was for the foul to be a dead ball penalty, immediately whistled and shut down.

IP is a live ball foul and would also be confusing.

[WVABJ1807]

We were told in our state meeting by the clinician that they chose this signal because they had to use a dead ball signal.  They couldn't call this illegal formation, because this foul is not a live ball foul.

[Logical]

As I mentioned:

I believe it should've been connected with 6-1-2 signal: "Free Kick Infraction" using IP signal.

Dead Ball (S7) : Free Kick Infraction (S19)

[HLinNC]

See also-
http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=10891.0

[younggun]

What game was that on ESPN? I am trying to find in on the Watch ESPN app.

[Logical]

What game was that on ESPN? I am trying to find in on the Watch ESPN app.

The TN game; I think it was Oakland/Blackman; not sure.
Kinda surprised me 'cause we plan on preventive officiating and it couldn't been corrected; commentator wasn't sure what happened.

See also-
http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=10891.0

Thanks but nothing on that thread addresses the final outcome that requires us to call encroachment when encroachment, as defined in Rule 2, did not occur.
It could easily be just like 6-1-2; absolutely no confusion.
Surely I'm not the only one that doesn't want to signal encroachment when there was no encroachment.

[VALJ]

Kinda surprised me 'cause we plan on preventive officiating and it couldn't been corrected; commentator wasn't sure what happened.

Wow, imagine that.  An ESPN commen-tater not knowing the rules.   

[AlUpstateNY]

.
Surely I'm not the only one that doesn't want to signal encroachment when there was no encroachment.

You might take a look at the NEW REVISIONS (2014) to NFHS 2-8 (Encroachment) and the NEW references suggested NF: 3-1-b & c, to ease your concerns.

[Logical]

You might take a look at the NEW REVISIONS (2014) to NFHS 2-8 (Encroachment) and the NEW references suggested NF: 3-1-b & c, to ease your concerns.

Nope; 

The NEW 2014 REVISIONS to 2-8 only point to 6-1-3a (which IS encroachment) and 6-1-3bc (which are NOT encroachment); the definition of encroachment remains:
“… when a player is illegally in the neutral zone …”

6-1-3c is a violation 5 yards away from the NZ and 6-1-3b has nothing to do with the NZ.

It would simply make more sense to enforce just as 6-1-2: a dead ball, free kick infraction.

I’ll just make sure if/when I make that call, it’s against the home team only; I don’t have to go to their sideline; our flanks can explain it  ;-)
I can hear it now: “Hey, that BJ signaled encroachment. We weren’t anywhere near the NZ!”

I thought others may share my view; no worries; moving on …

[HLinNC]

How's about Because The Fed Says So.

The thread I linked you discusses the machinations of the rule change.  I did not imply there would be an answer to encroachment but there was discussion about Illegal Formation.  Many originally thought this would be the foul we used. The NF came up with this to keep it a dead ball foul.

You will also realize and find threads discussing the fact that the kicker isn't a kicker until he kicks but they bent that one too.

[prab]

Perhaps the Nuremberg Defense ("I was just following orders.") is appropriate in this situation.  Of course it wasn't very successful in the past.

[Logical]

How's about Because The Fed Says So.

Jawohl, Colonel Klink!

Thanks for the negative fan reaction; nice community here; glad to see I made such a fast impression.
Now go wipe the tar of your heals.

[HLinNC]

Well, I hadn't voted but since you mentioned it....

[VALJ]

Logical, some times that's the only answer to give - the Fed says that they want to keep this a dead-ball foul, and they said to use the encroachment signal.  Why is the signal for targeting the same as that for illegal helmet contact?  Because Fed says so.  (That one makes more sense, I'll admit, since it's still contact to the head.)

[Rulesman]

Jawohl, Colonel Klink!

Thanks for the negative fan reaction; nice community here; glad to see I made such a fast impression.
Now go wipe the tar of your heals.

Keep it up and you'll make a fast exit.

[Jackhammer]

I tend to agree the point of an encroachment signal doesn't make much sense. 

The reasoning about live ball v. dead ball doesn't seem to make sense.  S19 is the signal for a free kick infraction, illegal formation, false start etc....some of which are live and some dead.

Doubt it will be that big of a deal...should be explaining it to the coaches anyway...and nobody else really knows.

[wvoref]

Maybe some other old timers can help me out with this. When I started officiating back in medieval days there was a rule that R had to have at least 5 players between the 50 and 45 ( for normal kickoffs).  If one of those players backed up behind the 45 before the kick didn't we flag that as a dead ball encroachment. I know that's not directly comparable but it kind of establishes a precedent

[Atlanta Blue]

Jawohl, Colonel Klink!

Thanks for the negative fan reaction; nice community here; glad to see I made such a fast impression.
Now go wipe the tar of your heals.

Does "encroachment" make sense?  No, but neither does requiring 4 on either side of the kicker from the RFP to the kick, when a kicker is defined as the person that kicks the ball.  Until he kicks it, how do you have 4 people on something that doesn't yet exist?

Look, the FED botched this rule, and went around the bend to make it a dead ball foul.  They claim they are going to fix it in January.  We'll see, it took three years to get the horse collar foul fixed.

Others tried to tell you that's just the way it is, and you proceed to argue about it, so they marked you down.  If you are so thin skinned to worry about that, what are you going to do on Friday nights?

[Ralph Damren]

Maybe some other old timers can help me out with this. When I started officiating back in medieval days there was a rule that R had to have at least 5 players between the 50 and 45 ( for normal kickoffs).  If one of those players backed up behind the 45 before the kick didn't we flag that as a dead ball encroachment. I know that's not directly comparable but it kind of establishes a precedent

1972 NFHS Rules Book : Free-kick infractions = signal #1 = "offside or violation of free kick rules" =same as our signal # 18 today ( encroachment ) . Somewhere over the years ,free-kick infraction - kicking OOB - was moved to signal #19 ( IF/FS etc) but the encroachment signal was still used for encroachment on the free kick. Will there be confusion  ..probably, but probably not as much as using a signal not always associated with a dead ball foul for an ALWAYS dead ball foul. 

[Rulesman]

1972 NFHS Rules Book : Free-kick infractions = signal #1 = "offside or violation of free kick rules"

Ah, yes... 1972. How I long for a return to the day when "offside" can once again be treated as a live ball foul. Probably won't happen though. 

[bama_stripes]

Will there be confusion  ..probably, but probably not as much as using a signal not always associated with a dead ball foul for an ALWAYS dead ball foul. 

I've never had a PA announcer get it right when I signal Illegal Formation.  They always announce it as a False Start.

[Rulesman]

I've never had a PA announcer get it right when I signal Illegal Formation.  They always announce it as a False Start.

How many PAs still announce encorachment as "offside?"

[Atlanta Blue]

How many PAs still announce encorachment as "offside?"

How many OFFICIALS still say "Illegal Procedure"?!?!

Unfortunately, there was one here the other night that did so THREE TIMES on national TV.  Downright embarrassing.

[Rulesman]

"Illegal Procedure" - a/k/a "He was giving him the business!"