False start?

[Snapper]

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”.

[HLinNC]

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. 

[CalhounLJ]

So you’re saying that calling for the snap is not an act?

[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"

[CalhounLJ]

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.

[HLinNC]

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.

[CalhounLJ]

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

[KWH]

  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!

[AlUpstateNY]

  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."

[KWH]

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

[Mad Mike]

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?

[HLinNC]

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.

[AlUpstateNY]

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.

[KWH]

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.

[AlUpstateNY]

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....... "

[KWH]

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?

[CalhounLJ]

Huh?

There are two types of people in the world. Those who have something to say, and those who have to say something ....

[AlUpstateNY]

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.

[CalhounLJ]

Ok captain obvious.

[KWH]

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 ....