FST or ISH

[bossman72]

The offense is completely set out of the huddle (so the "new" illegal shift doesn't come into play here).

(a) A restricted lineman is going from a 2pt to a 3pt stance as the ball is snapped
(b) A back or eligible on the end of the line is going from a 2pt to a 3pt stance as the ball is being snapped.

False start or Illegal Shift?

Please back up your answer with the rulebook or AR or interp from CFO.

[Kalle]

I'm inclined to call these illegal motion, if anything.

a) illegal motion, a lineman may not be in motion at the snap.
b) no foul, a back may be in motion.

Rule 7-1-4-b-1 and -2.

[Andrew McCarthy]

False start or Illegal Shift?

These don't fit the definition of a shift.  They would be either a false start or illegal motion, if anything.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Can't be an illegal shift since a shift by definition requires two or more players moving prior to the snap (2-22-1).

I'd agree with Kalle on the A) call - illegal motion.  The b) call is a bit tougher.  If the back has not legally established himself in motion prior to the snap then depending on what this actually looks like in the judgment of the official(s) we could have a false start, illegal motion, or as Kalle notes maybe nothing.

[Diablo]

In (b) part 1, if the back is moving to a 3-pt stance and not simulating the start of the down, I say,  "no foul".
In (b) part 2, no player legally on his line of scrimmage (eligible or ineligible) can be in motion at the snap - illegal motion foul.

[Kalle]

If the back has not legally established himself in motion prior to the snap then depending on what this actually looks like in the judgment of the official(s) we could have a false start, illegal motion,

Which rule does a back break when his movement does not simulate a snap and the movement is not forward? There is no rule saying that a back may not go in motion "immediately before the snap", so there is no need for him to "establish himself in motion prior to the snap".

OK, if the movement is very quick and/or jerky, you have a case for a false start, but I'm hard pressed to imagine such a fast drop to a 3-pt stance by a back.

[NVFOA_Ump]

If the "motion" is just prior to the snap, then we need to make a judgment on intent and if it's not obvious that he was going in motion, or going into a three point stance, are we going to let it go?

[El Macman]

We've been kicking this around on this board about as long as it has been around. As far as I know, nothing has changed in that time. At least two current and one former FBS coordinator would support and prefer a false start ruling on these, while they acknowledge, that technically, these are illegal motion. They simply would prefer to not let a play get started with such an obvious defect.
This is one that RR really does need to address and bring closure to. Someone throw it at him.

As for the possibility of a back being legal while moving from a 2 to 3 point stance and the ball being snapped as he is moving, it could happen, if he just drops straight down. That would likely leave him in a flat-footed stance - which may be what he wants - who knows? However, he may lean forward as he is dropping, to put himself into a position to charge forward quickly at the snap. When that happens, and the ball is snapped as he is moving, he'll be moving forward, thus, illegal motion. That's technical, for sure, and I don't see any advantage he might gain. My luck, though, I'd pass on the call, and he'd catch a TD pass, with the opposing team screaming the whole time.

[JasonTX]

Reviving an old post.  It's been a few years since the original question was asked.  What are the current opinions to the original question in this thread.

[bossman72]

Reviving an old post.  It's been a few years since the original question was asked.  What are the current opinions to the original question in this thread.

Unofficially, CFO West has an interpretation that (a) is a FST and (b) is Illegal Motion.