Encroachment philosophy

[clearwall]

What is everyone's thoughts about flagging for encroachment when the player who has encroached is a WR who is 10-yd or so away from the ball? I've always been told that we should let this slide unless it's egregious or continues to happen after many warnings. Is this like 5 in the backfield where the real target for the rule is the interior linemen?

Here's a play where it happened:
www.youtube.com/embed/oe_Dj3_2Yhw

Would you call this on the first time the WR lined up over the ball or would you warn here?

[Wingmanbp]

From the varsity level and up I call it every time if the center touches the ball and the receiver steps into the neutral zone then it's a penalty. They should be aware of where they are at that level. in subvarsity I have more leniency.

[clearwall]

I dont mean to sound as if I'm disagreeing with you, but can you tell me what advantage a WR is gaining by doing that? If you DONT throw a flag and just preventative officiate, who's going to know or criticize? It seems like throwing the flag is just drawing unnecessary attention and garnering unnecessary consternation for yourself.

I make the correlation to a stacked WR where one is on the line and one is barely an inch or so behind him. RR tells us to "make him legal" and not to be overly officious. I would think this is the same scenario. If you can explain why you feel differently, I'd be interested in your thought.

There are no ARs in the rulebook(although I didnt do an extensive search on CFO) but the RR study guide has two plays that are similar. One is on a SCR Kick formation where a "WR A90" which I assume is attached to the line as an end is lined up over the ball. Ruling:Encroachment. The other talks about a guard lined up past the ball on a regular scrimmage play. This is why I question if it's not a penalty meant to watch out for interior linemen getting an advantage.

[Kalle]

On a well marked field this is an obvious foul and it is easy for the receiver to make sure that he is not in the neutral zone. When it is as obvious as in this case, I'd want it called. And no, there is little advantage, but the rules makers have decided to make this a foul.

On the other hand, would you flag a defender at the snap if he is lined up as much in the neutral zone as the WR here? If yes, why should the defense be penalized for the same action when the rules say to penalize both?

[clearwall]

On the other hand, would you flag a defender at the snap if he is lined up as much in the neutral zone as the WR here? If yes, why should the defense be penalized for the same action when the rules say to penalize both?

I'd go back to my 'gain an advantage' criteria. Is the DB in press coverage and basically standing on top of the WR or is he off to the side and lined up slightly over the ball? If he's an interior DL, again, I think that's a much more serious advantage gained than a DB over the ball with his receiver in the backfield, 2-3 yards away. What's the harm in correcting this one time before letting the flag fly?

[Rulesman]

In today's game, the difference in a receiver making a play vs. a DB, or not being able to make a play against a DB, is sometimes a mere "half of a step."

If, for example, the nose of the football is touching a yard line, and the wide receiver's front foot is touching that same yard line, he, IMO, is in the neutral zone and has gained that proverbial "half-step" advantage even before the snap takes place. While I agree with the make-him-legal philosophy, he'd better expect that once he is told to back up, we're not going to repeat the message down after down. Gaining an unfair advantage is not.... fair. Following that initial reminder/warning, all it takes is one flag and he's legal for the rest of the night because he knows he is being watched. Been there, done that? You betcha!

[bossman72]

What is everyone's thoughts about flagging for encroachment when the player who has encroached is a WR who is 10-yd or so away from the ball? I've always been told that we should let this slide unless it's egregious or continues to happen after many warnings. Is this like 5 in the backfield where the real target for the rule is the interior linemen?

Here's a play where it happened:
www.youtube.com/embed/oe_Dj3_2Yhw

Would you call this on the first time the WR lined up over the ball or would you warn here?

In this example, I would absolutely NOT call that.

It has to be really bad for me to call that.

[Andrew McCarthy]

If called, it should be announced as encroachment and the rolling fist signal used.

[Wingmanbp]

I don't see an advantage but apparently the rule makers do or it wouldn't be in the rule book. I have no idea why they made it a penalty as soon as the player steps into the neutral zone while the centers hand is on the ball, instead of letting him get back, but they did so therefore I enforce it as such.

[clearwall]

In today's game, the difference in a receiver making a play vs. a DB, or not being able to make a play against a DB, is sometimes a mere "half of a step."

If, for example, the nose of the football is touching a yard line, and the wide receiver's front foot is touching that same yard line, he, IMO, is in the neutral zone and has gained that proverbial "half-step" advantage even before the snap takes place. While I agree with the make-him-legal philosophy, he'd better expect that once he is told to back up, we're not going to repeat the message down after down. Gaining an unfair advantage is not.... fair. Following that initial reminder/warning, all it takes is one flag and he's legal for the rest of the night because he knows he is being watched. Been there, done that? You betcha!

I am absolutely with you on this. That's why I specifically mentioned what would you do the very first time you saw it. Looks like most people feel as I do, tell the guy to move back at least once and then if he continues to offend, then flag it. That was my thought as well. I don't know about the rest of y'all but I really don't like throwing flags. I find that the more you throw, the more scrutiny you draw and the more frustration you create for the coaches. If you can get away with letting something like this go once rather than flagging it, you'll be better off in the long run.

[Wingmanbp]

I am absolutely with you on this. That's why I specifically mentioned what would you do the very first time you saw it. Looks like most people feel as I do, tell the guy to move back at least once and then if he continues to offend, then flag it. That was my thought as well. I don't know about the rest of y'all but I really don't like throwing flags. I find that the more you throw, the more scrutiny you draw and the more frustration you create for the coaches. If you can get away with letting something like this go once rather than flagging it, you'll be better off in the long run.

until the defensive coach sees that you let him get away with a foul and then he is gonna holler when you flag his team for offsides without telling him to back up

[Kalle]

Like Wingmanbp said, if you give talk-tos on offsides, you can give a talk-to on encroachments, too. If you don't, then you can't. Both are just as much a foul.