Illegal Motion or False Start

[TXMike]

From Rom Gilbert's site:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjdQw2OgetQ

[Etref]

Deadball false start

[Chester]

Agree FST. 

[Welpe]

Agree also, FST.

[TxKeith]

Another for false start

[NVFOA_Ump]

Could potentially go either way, but based on our guidance since this is an eligible receiver who can legally reset and since there was no clear and abrupt turn up-field, I'll agree with the Illegal Motion call.  If he resets, it's not (in my opinion) going to be a false start which supports the original Illegal Motion call.

Until he doesn't stop for a second and reset, which he can't do once the snap goes, it's a foul.  It then becomes a foul at the snap since he's still moving forward - I'll go with the live-ball Illegal Motion.

[110]

Just for giggles and grins - I'm going to suggest ineligible downfield. The forward motion of the slot covers the tight-end, who is therefore, ineligible.

Now, where is the stirring-the-pot smiley when I need one?

[940AC]

I have to agree with the IM call. The player never came to a set position.

[mbyron]

I have to agree with the IM call. The player never came to a set position.

That's not illegal motion.

[940AC]

That's not illegal motion.

?
If the player would have come set, and then started before the snap we have FS.
Since he never came set and was still in motion we have IM. What am I missing?
Please help me out here.

[El Macman]

Wow. Are y'all not seeing that he misjudges the snap count and lurches forward, starts to catch himself, then the ball is snapped, and he begins moving downfield? Forget the motion business - he made a quick, jerky movement before the snap. False start, plain and simple.
And forget the IDP - the ball was snapped before the back got up on the line. Just a false start.

We've all been there before - let a play get started before we get realize we should have shut it down, and just it play out. Thankfully, they didn't allow a big play to stand. As it turned out, no harm. But a good lesson play. We'll cover this in our pre-game this Friday night.

...since there was no clear and abrupt turn up-field, ...

?
If the player would have come set, and then started before the snap we have FS.
Since he never came set and was still in motion we have IM. What am I missing?
Please help me out here.

[Welpe]

?
If the player would have come set, and then started before the snap we have FS.
Since he never came set and was still in motion we have IM. What am I missing?
Please help me out here.

That was an illegal shift until this year. Now it is a false start. Macman noted what I believe many of us are observing with the lurch forward.

[Diablo]

Wow. Are y'all not seeing that he misjudges the snap count and lurches forward, starts to catch himself, then the ball is snapped, and he begins moving downfield? Forget the motion business - he made a quick, jerky movement before the snap. False start, plain and simple.

My low tech analysis indicates the snap started either a millisecond before or simultaneously with the lurch.  Maybe someone with super-dupper slo mo with microsecond frame freezing and sprinkles can provide a higher resolution determination.

[TXMike]

So you are saying it is neither ? 

[El Macman]

My low tech analysis indicates the snap started either a millisecond before or simultaneously with the lurch.  Maybe someone with super-dupper slo mo with microsecond frame freezing and sprinkles can provide a higher resolution determination.

I use the same technique for determining a delay foul, i.e., see the lurch then look at the ball to see if it is moving. I see the lurch, then move my eyes to the ball, and THEN I can see it begin to move. That means it had not started moving before, or simultaneously with, the lurch.
False start.

[mccormicw]

If we determine that the player "lurched", we have a false start.  IMO, If any other movement would be legal if the players was shifting (e.g. turning upfield and stopping in a new position), we wouldn't have a false start.  Therefore, the turning upfield early (without a lurch) seems to be a violation of 7-1-4-b (below) if the player is "moving toward the opponent's goal line" at the snap. 

b. Man in Motion.
1. One back may be in motion, but he may not be moving toward his opponent’s goal line.
2. The player who goes in motion may not start from the line of scrimmage unless he first becomes a back and comes to a complete stop.
3. A player in motion at the snap must have satisfied the one-second
rule—i.e., he may not start his motion before any shift has ended (Rule
2-22-1-c).

[TXMike]

Just because he was in motion at one time does not exempt him from 7-1-2-b-1  (any movement that simulates the start of the play)

[mccormicw]

I concur Mike.  I think the player in the video committed a false start.  I know some people call a false start and never call illegal motion.  Their logic is that an movement towards to opponent's goal line is a false start.


My point was that players move quickly towards to the opponents goal line (without jumping/lurching/etc) during a shift quite often without a false start call (i.e. tight end shifting from one end of the line to the other).  Therefore, moving towards the opponent's goal line is not always a false start. 

[Grant - AR]

Now, where is the stirring-the-pot smiley when I need one?

You asked for it. 

[110]

You asked for it. 

Yeah but .... nobody bit on the lure ....

[zebra99]

FST all the way - action which simulates a snap - he simply missed the snap count and tried to correct himself.  We need to shut this down otherwise when the defense recovers the fumble for the winning TD in the national championship game -  can you just imagine the size of the microscope on the crew?

[TXMike]

I agree with the FST but there are some who say that by doing that we deny Team B the chance to do just that, make the big play.  Reportedly there was once a philosophy that said to call it IM just because of that

[zebra99]

I agree with the FST but there are some who say that by doing that we deny Team B the chance to do just that, make the big play.  Reportedly there was once a philosophy that said to call it IM just because of that

interesting - all I've ever heard is the opposite, try to make it a FST and not let the play develop.  I worked the lines for several years and never found it difficult to make the distinction.  Almost always, unless the player was in motion and was drifting forward, it was a FST.  The motion man who turns toward the LOS just as the ball was snapped is a FST, he was trying to time the snap and simply missed, just like traditional linemen FSTs.

[NVFOA_Ump]

So when Team A runs this play 4-5 times and each time the WR resets for a count prior to the snap, and the next time the snapper thinks he's got a defender in the NZ and snaps the ball early with the WR still moving forward prior to getting set, what do we have?

[Kalle]

So when Team A runs this play 4-5 times and each time the WR resets for a count prior to the snap, and the next time the snapper thinks he's got a defender in the NZ and snaps the ball early with the WR still moving forward prior to getting set, what do we have?

If you have 4-5 times refrained from flagging this as a FST (and hopefully you have your supervisor backing you up on that decision) then you have illegal motion by team A, obviously (and potentially an offsetting offside by team B).