False Start or Illegal Motion on Kicker ? (video)

[TXMike]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC4hQL1mEIw

Kickers have been known to get out of rhythm pre-snap and start their movement to the ball before ball is snapped.  Is this a false start, illegal motion, nothing?

Perhaps that is his "normal" rhythm though.  Check out his earlier FG attempt that ended in a busted play/1st down.    http://youtu.be/uH2GZQd93oc

[Atlanta Blue]

False start both times.  Just because he does does it "normally" doesn't make it legal.  If a running back "normally" took a stutter step forward on every play, would you let it go?

This was a kicker that was over anxious and jumped the snap count both times.  Flag him!

[FLbackjudge]

Agree with Atlanta Blue (who, no doubt, coaches his kickers to stay still until the snap), these are both FST and should have been flagged by R.

[Atlanta Blue]

Agree with Atlanta Blue (who, no doubt, coaches his kickers to stay still until the snap), these are both FST and should have been flagged by R.

I do coach it.  Doesn't mean it always happens, but I do coach it.

On a kick, the snapper calls a signal that he is ready, it is up to the snapper to decide when to snap after that point.  The kicker is coached to start his move forward when the ball is snapped. His focus point is the block or mark where the ball will be placed, and he is actually moving based on his peripheral vision of movement, not an actual sighting of the ball.

If a kicker jumps the snap in practice, he loses his rep, and jogs to the far goalpost and back.  Not a major punishment, but enough to remind him to concentrate.  Looks like the Michigan kicker needs a little running.

[LAZebra]

This call may be missed more often than we would like to think.

[Rulesman]

I thought the same thing when it happened: FLS = 

Don't know that 5 yards would have mattered, but still should have been called.

[James]

Agreement here as well.
Another interesting thing was the 2nd video - the hold (I thought) on the rusher. My thinking was, ok, good no call because the ball carrier was basically already past, so not point of attack, but the 2nd angle (especially in slow mo) you can see it was a facemask.
Looking for opinions as to who would or would not have called that.

[Sonofanump]

Now I agree that this should be called something since the action is a step or stutter step.  Kickers are always moving prior to the snap, twisting their arms, moving their legs but we don’t call those actions, but this action is blantant.

Earlier in the year, Cal vs Ore we had this called illegal motion:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/video/college-football/Highlights-Giorgio-Tavecchios-Penalty-vs-Oregon-885412

[Atlanta Blue]

Now I agree that this should be called something since the action is a step or stutter step.  Kickers are always moving prior to the snap, twisting their arms, moving their legs but we don’t call those actions, but this action is blantant.

Earlier in the year, Cal vs Ore we had this called illegal motion:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/video/college-football/Highlights-Giorgio-Tavecchios-Penalty-vs-Oregon-885412

Good call, but that couldn't have been this year.  The officials were still in knickers.

[TXMike]

2010 game and it was called illegal motion, not false start.  SInce this was the PAC 10 I wonder if perhaps plays like this were addressed between last season and this season and the PAC 10 guys were told not to flag.  It was a PAC 10 crew that did not flag the kicker in the play that started the thread.

[Chester]

I'm passing on this as well.  If the defense reacts then maybe but the video I just saw...I'm with the R.  OT in the Sugar Bowl...no effect on anything.  I'll pass and see what my boss says afterwards. 

[Atlanta Blue]

I'm passing on this as well.  If the defense reacts then maybe but the video I just saw...I'm with the R.  OT in the Sugar Bowl...no effect on anything.  I'll pass and see what my boss says afterwards.

Do you let it go if a running back does the same thing?

[Wingman]

Agreement here as well.
Another interesting thing was the 2nd video - the hold (I thought) on the rusher. My thinking was, ok, good no call because the ball carrier was basically already past, so not point of attack, but the 2nd angle (especially in slow mo) you can see it was a facemask.
Looking for opinions as to who would or would not have called that.

Not at the point of attack??  Are we watching the same video?
Someone on the crew should have seen that. The grab of the facemask I thought allowed for the runner to slip by.

Re false start or IM..  if the boss says I gotta call one.. I'd have to go with IM.

[Rulesman]

Re false start or IM..  if the boss says I gotta call one.. I'd have to go with IM.

Is he not simulating action as in 7-1-2b? If it's 1st down rather than 4th down and a back in a 2-point stance does the same thing, you call IM?

[TXMike]

The principle I follow is that if I judge the back took off thinking the ball was being snapped, it is a false start.  It is like the back in motion who pivots sharply and goes towards the line of scrimmage just before the snap.  He missed the timing and went early.  That is a false start.  This kicker did just that.  He anticipated the snap and flinched.  That is a false start.  I understand the argument for lettng the play go and calling it illegal motion because the flinch may screw up his timing so much the whole play goes south and defense might want to decline the penalty anyway.  That is a strong argument for sure.  We semi-reward him by shutting it down and letting him get his wits together before trying again (from a measly 5 yards back).    I just think we should be consistent and treat the kicker as we would any other back.

[MJT]

  I understand the argument for letting the play go and calling it illegal motion because the flinch may screw up his timing so much the whole play goes south and defense might want to decline the penalty anyway.  That is a strong argument for sure.     I just think we should be consistent and treat the kicker as we would any other back.

Every conference and clinic I have been associated has with has always said to call a FST, and not have anything like this be ILM. The defense should not be allowed to have a FST declined and take a pick 6 cuz we called it an ILM and not a FST. I know it would be a downgrade for me, and we have been told so.

That being said, as an R, this is not an easy call. The R is focused on the holder and kicker presnap so it is not so easy for him to see if the ball gets snapped just after the kicker moves forward. In the previous kick play, it is even less of a FST.  This is a HUGE game, and the kick is to win the game, and you had better by 110% sure it is a FST before you blow that baby dead. I just think as it happened he wasn't so sure so had no flag. It would be great to know what he says he saw and what he thinks now after seeing it replayed.

[Atlanta Blue]

Sure, you're focused on the kicker and the holder, but you can see the snap peripherally, just as the kicker does.  And if the kicker starts forward and stops, that's a huge clue something's not right.

I don't understand how it doesn't get called, and I coach kickers!  This is a mistake, and a foul, by the kicker.  Flag him for it!

[Rulesman]

...as an R, this is not an easy call. The R is focused on the holder and kicker presnap so it is not so easy for him to see if the ball gets snapped just after the kicker moves forward.

As an R, I have a hard time understanding that. If you are in the right position, with the right depth and focused on your key(s), it's no more difficult to make this call than it is to nail the back who jumps just prior to the snap.

[wlemonnier]

This is a false start by the kicker.  When I missed it on the field it was because it caught me off guard... lack of pre-snap focus/concentration... complacency that it's just a PAT or field goal.  Since then it's something I remind myself of when I set up in position.  Called this a season or two back and it never raised a question with anyone on or off the field.  It was mentioned earlier that a back, including the kicker, who starts and stops has given it away that he blew the snap count and started early.  The back who starts and continues in motion has not false started.

[Atlanta Blue]

This is a false start by the kicker.  When I missed it on the field it was because it caught me off guard... lack of pre-snap focus/concentration... complacency that it's just a PAT or field goal.

Thank you, an honest answer, and I appreciate hearing it.  Not trying to defend it, and just admitting you missed it by not concentrating.  It happens, I get that, you move on after learning from it.  A pleasant change from some others I've heard.

Of course, to kickers, and their coaches, it's never JUST a PAT or field goal!

[zebra99]

This is a false start by the kicker.  When I missed it on the field it was because it caught me off guard... lack of pre-snap focus/concentration... complacency that it's just a PAT or field goal.  Since then it's something I remind myself of when I set up in position.  Called this a season or two back and it never raised a question with anyone on or off the field.  It was mentioned earlier that a back, including the kicker, who starts and stops has given it away that he blew the snap count and started early.  The back who starts and continues in motion has not false started.

I'll raise my hand as missing this once too!  Big game but no one said a word.  Didn't make me feel any better though!

On backs it depends on how they "start" - to me if they obviously "missed" the snap count (thus, simulating the start of the play) it's a FST even if they are still going forward at the snap - we should shut it down immediately so in reality they're not going to get much of a chance to still be moving forward.  If they intended to go in motion and the ball was snapped as they were going forward, even if very early, then illegal motion.

Your thoughts on this?

[TXMike]

i am with Z99.  I have never been taught that a back can "buy" his way out of a false start call by continuing on in motion.  By definition, if he commits an act that we deem to be a false start, it is a foul and everything is over. We do not give him a chance to "sneak" his way out of it

[Atlanta Blue]

i am with Z99.  I have never been taught that a back can "buy" his way out of a false start call by continuing on in motion.  By definition, if he commits an act that we deem to be a false start, it is a foul and everything is over. We do not give him a chance to "sneak" his way out of it

True, IF you can see the hesitation and can tell he jumped the count.  If he's smart enough to keep moving and making it look like a shift instead of jumping the snap count, he'll get away with it, even though he might have just missed the count.