Disconcerting Signals

[NVFOA_Ump]

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?

[cmathews]

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

[TxGrayhat]

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.

[wingnut]

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.  

[110]

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?

[wingnut]

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.

[TXMike]

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

[NVFOA_Ump]

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.

[TXMike]

So far there are 2 of you "following the rules"...just saying...........

[wingnut]

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.

[TXMike]

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

[Luke]

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.

[110]

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.

[wingnut]

"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. 

[Atlanta Blue]

"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.

[wingnut]

"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).

[NVFOA_Ump]

"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.

[HAshleyTX]

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.

[TXMike]

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.

[NVFOA_Ump]

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.

[Kalle]

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?

[KB]

Due to the lack of a distinct "sound or cadence of offensive signals", there is nothing that that can be simulated.

[NVFOA_Ump]

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.

[KB]

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.

[Grant - AR]

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.