RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: ChicagoZebra on November 05, 2017, 09:57:38 AM
-
A12 is lined up as a slot back. Before the snap, he motions forward to the line, and without stopping then starts running laterally on the line while the ball is snapped. Is this a legal motion? Is a receiver to the inside of A12 ineligible?
-
If the man in motion is not in the backfield it is illegal motion at the snap. He cannot be running "along the line".
I know that this has been discussed in the past, and that the rules and AR's are not definitive on this question. Somewhere on my files I have a document (I believe a RR issued one) that states that the man in motion must still be in the backfield (ie: a legal back) at the snap. I'm still looking but if any of the Refstripes crew can add some info here please do.
-
First question: No, it is not legal to be in motion along the line of scrimmage at the snap.
The only player who can be legally in motion is one back.
However, a player is not a back if his head is breaking the plane of the nearest lineman's waistline. (Not even just the snapper's waistline, but the nearest lineman's, which will be even further back than the snapper's.)
So this player is in illegal motion, regardless of where the player started from. (This is only a foul at the snap - it's legal to run along the line as long as it's temporary.)
Second question: Can a player in motion along the line of scrimmage "cover up" a receiver? I'm not sure.
Suppose A88 is on the right end of the line. A22 goes in motion from the backfield, runs up to A88's right, and runs along the line of scrimmage.
I know the following two facts:
- The player in motion (A22) is not classified as a lineman.
- A lineman (A88) is only eligible if he is "on the end of his scrimmage line."
What I don't know is whether "on the end of his scrimmage line" means there are no linemen between him and the sideline, or no players at all between him and the sideline.
This isn't just an academic question. Sure, we're flagging A22 for a five-yard penalty, so whether we also flag A88 for IDF or IT won't affect the outcome - but what about OPI? Consider what happens if A88 (a) blocks a defender 1-3 yards downfield during a pass play, or (b) goes out for a pass and catches a 50-50 jump-ball closely guarded by a defender. The former is OPI if A88 is eligible. The latter is OPI if A88 is NOT eligible.
-
Second question: Can a player in motion along the line of scrimmage "cover up" a receiver? I'm not sure.
The player in motion became a lineman when his head was breaking the waistline of the snapper when the ball was snapped. If he is on the end of the line then everyone else to the inside is "covered up".
-
The player in motion became a lineman when his head was breaking the waistline of the snapper when the ball was snapped. If he is on the end of the line then everyone else to the inside is "covered up".
Annoyingly the definition of a lineman requires that the player is legally on the line, and as a lineman cannot be in motion, a player otherwise meeting the definition but in motion does not become a lineman.
I agree with Morningrise that the rules do not address this. But I think the spirit of the rule is that a player who is neither a lineman nor a back does cover up the lineman at the end of the line.
-
I'd like to modify my statement about a player in motion on the LOS not being a lineman.
The definition of a lineman is a player who is on his LOS with his shoulders facing north (2-27-4-a).
But this definition does not actually say he must be stationary! Reading the definition, it looks like someone who's facing his opponent's goal line, and in line with the snapper's waistline, could be moving and still meet the definition of a lineman.
Could it be that, if a motion man is on the LOS, he's a lineman if he's facing downfield and side-stepping, but not if he's facing the sideline and taking regular steps?
Maybe it's best to have the interpretation that such a player is always covering someone up, lineman or no, so that the outcome is always the same regardless of which way he's illegally stepping.
-
I'd like to modify my statement about a player in motion on the LOS not being a lineman.
The definition of a lineman is a player who is on his LOS with his shoulders facing north (2-27-4-a).
But this definition does not actually say he must be stationary! Reading the definition, it looks like someone who's facing his opponent's goal line, and in line with the snapper's waistline, could be moving and still meet the definition of a lineman.
Could it be that, if a motion man is on the LOS, he's a lineman if he's facing downfield and side-stepping, but not if he's facing the sideline and taking regular steps?
Maybe it's best to have the interpretation that such a player is always covering someone up, lineman or no, so that the outcome is always the same regardless of which way he's illegally stepping.
Starting on the line and then becoming a back requires that the lineman steps off the line into the backfield and comes to a complete stop. By doing that a player has legally became a back. I can't find any requirement for a back to become a lineman having to pause. Now, as already pointed out, he would be in illegal motion but he has met the requirements of being a lineman and that's why is motion is illegal.
Let's reverse the situation:
Imagine a formation with both A25 and A88 both out to the right of the formation and both players stationary on the line of scrimmage. A88 is the outside player. A88 goes in motion and is 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage and still in motion when the ball is snapped. A25 runs downfield and catches the pass for a TD. What fouls do we have?
-
I'd just have 1 flag for Illegal Motion.
For an academic discussion A88 is clearly not on the line at the snap therefore A25 is not covered. However, since A88 although not a legal back since he never stopped and set, is "in the backfield" at the snap, we could also have too many men in the backfield if there were 4 backs there prior to A88's illegal motion.
-
However, a player is not a back if his head is breaking the plane of the nearest lineman's waistline. (Not even just the snapper's waistline, but the nearest lineman's, which will be even further back than the snapper's.)
Doesn't rule 2 read specifically that a lineman is:
Lineman and Back
ARTICLE 4. a. Lineman.
1. A lineman is any Team A player legally on his scrimmage line (Rule 2-21-2).
2. A Team A player is legally on his scrimmage line when he faces his opponent’s goal line with the line of his shoulders approximately parallel thereto and either
(a) he is the snapper (Rule 2-27-8) or
(b) his head breaks the plane of the line drawn through the waistline of the snapper.
The "flying wedge" where each "lineman" is only breaking the waistline of the player inside of him is an illegal formation by definition.
-
Been mulling this over.
The rule language isn’t as clear as it needs to be, but, IMHO, even if he is in motion, treat this player as though he is a lineman or a back, depending on whether or not he meets the positional elements for those classifications. One way or another, he’ll commit an illegal motion foul at the snap, unless he stops in the backfield before the ball is snapped.
If he is - positionally - on the line, then he would be ‘covering’ anybody inside of him. If he is on the end, make him eligible (assuming he’s wearing an eligible number). If he is interior, he is ineligible.
If he is in the backfield, then he has no effect on the linemen, but he would be counted as a backfield player for the purposes of counting backfield players.
If he doesn’t stop in the backfield, Team A is gonna get a foul, under any of those circumstances. Illegal motion or illegal formation, take your pick. Then possibly ineligible downfield and/or OPI.
Robert
-
Doesn't rule 2 read specifically that a lineman is:
Lineman and Back
ARTICLE 4. a. Lineman.
1. A lineman is any Team A player legally on his scrimmage line (Rule 2-21-2).
2. A Team A player is legally on his scrimmage line when he faces his opponent’s goal line with the line of his shoulders approximately parallel thereto and either
(a) he is the snapper (Rule 2-27-8) or
(b) his head breaks the plane of the line drawn through the waistline of the snapper.
The "flying wedge" where each "lineman" is only breaking the waistline of the player inside of him is an illegal formation by definition.
You have the definition of a lineman but you are missing the definition of a back, which is what morningrise was talking about. You must break the waist of the snapper to be a lineman. You must NOT break the line of the nearest lineman to be a back. Players meeting neither of these, like your flying wedge example, are neither linemen or backs. They are in “no-man’s land” and referred to by some on this board as mugwumps I think.
-
You have the definition of a lineman but you are missing the definition of a back, which is what morningrise was talking about. You must break the waist of the snapper to be a lineman. You must NOT break the line of the nearest lineman to be a back. Players meeting neither of these, like your flying wedge example, are neither linemen or backs. They are in “no-man’s land” and referred to by some on this board as mugwumps I think.
My point was that the primary foul here is Illegal Motion and we potentially have a foul for Illegal Formation if in fact we have "linemen" who are not breaking the line thru the snapper's waist. I'm not sure that it's even possible to come up with all of the various flavors of potential rules "revisions" it would take to cover the possibilities of what fouls could we have based on the revised play here.
To begin with, do we have 2 flags if A88 is a "mugwump" because he's lined up at the same depth as A22 and the tackle on his side who's also a "mugwump" and goes in motion? Illegal Motion and Illegal Formation? If they both go downfield on a forward pass play then 2 Ineligibles Downfield? If one of them catches the pass then Illegal Touching? We've got a clear foul or two at the snap, that's enough for me.
-
A12 is lined up as a slot back. Before the snap, he motions forward to the line, and without stopping then starts running laterally on the line while the ball is snapped. Is this a legal motion? Is a receiver to the inside of A12 ineligible?
My understanding of the rule is that you are a back or a lineman depending on where you last set for a full second. So in your example, even though he ends up breaking the waistline of the center, he's still a back and you have a legal formation and the inside receiver is NOT covered up.
-
My understanding of the rule is that you are a back or a lineman depending on where you last set for a full second. So in your example, even though he ends up breaking the waistline of the center, he's still a back and you have a legal formation and the inside receiver is NOT covered up.
This was my thinking too, but a careful reading of the rule for motion and definitions of backs/lineman makes it seem like this only applies for players moving from being a lineman to a back and not the other way around.
I agree with the discussion here, that (a) this is entirely academic, and (b) is either illegal motion or illegal formation or both depending on how exactly you define the rules.
-
I agree that it's academic in a sense - we're always going to have a 5-yard flag - but I'd still like to know if we should have a 15-yard flag for OPI if the neighboring receiver does things that a covered-up receiver isn't allowed to do.
-
I agree that it's academic in a sense - we're always going to have a 5-yard flag - but I'd still like to know if we should have a 15-yard flag for OPI if the neighboring receiver does things that a covered-up receiver isn't allowed to do.
Can a player in motion "legally" be on the line of scrimmage per the definition in rule 2? I'm not sure it its clear, because the exact scope of legality is not clear. One could interpret that as long as the player in motion has his shoulders parallel to the goal line (i.e. side stepping) then he is legally on the line and any one to his inside is ineligible.
-
Can a player in motion "legally" be on the line of scrimmage per the definition in rule 2? I'm not sure it its clear, because the exact scope of legality is not clear. One could interpret that as long as the player in motion has his shoulders parallel to the goal line (i.e. side stepping) then he is legally on the line and any one to his inside is ineligible.
If we assume for discussion that he's legally on the line per rule 2 then IMHO we would have to have a blow & throw for a False Start since he would be moving prior to the snap.
-
If we assume for discussion that he's legally on the line per rule 2 then IMHO we would have to have a blow & throw for a False Start since he would be moving prior to the snap.
But it is not a false start to be moving before the snap. It is a false start to simulate the snap or to make quick, jerky movements.
-
This was my thinking too, but a careful reading of the rule for motion and definitions of backs/lineman makes it seem like this only applies for players moving from being a lineman to a back and not the other way around.
I agree with the discussion here, that (a) this is entirely academic, and (b) is either illegal motion or illegal formation or both depending on how exactly you define the rules.
I have no foul in the original play.
-
I have no foul in the original play.
He is not a back and only a back can be in motion at the snap. The one second pause rule only applies to lineman who transition to become a back, there is no such rule for the other way around.
-
He is not a back and only a back can be in motion at the snap. The one second pause rule only applies to lineman who transition to become a back, there is no such rule for the other way around.
The one second pause only applies to a shift, not a single player in motion.
-
The one second pause only applies to a shift, not a single player in motion.
That's not accurate when a lineman is repositioning to become a legal back. The player must stop and set establishing himself legally as a back before he can then go in motion.
-
That's not accurate when a lineman is repositioning to become a legal back. The player must stop and set establishing himself legally as a back before he can then go in motion.
But that full stop can be shorter than a second.
-
But that full stop can be shorter than a second.
On my watch a full stop is a second, but who's timing it? We need a complete stop.
-
On my watch a full stop is a second, but who's timing it? We need a complete stop.
If that were what the rules makers wanted they would have applied the one second requirement to both situations. But they did not. It is only required for a shift.
-
He is not a back and only a back can be in motion at the snap. The one second pause rule only applies to lineman who transition to become a back, there is no such rule for the other way around.
He is a back. He did not set for a second on the LOS to become a lineman. So he is a back until he stops and sets on the line.
-
And, you would have his motion (at the snap) be deemed legal?
I don't believe for a second the Rules Committee, now or ever (at least since 1972), would consider this to be legal motion. If that motion is legal, the can of worms it opens regarding pass eligibility is huge.
If this motion is ILLEGAL (as I believe it is), then everything else is moot. If not, wow....
Robert
-
He is a back. He did not set for a second on the LOS to become a lineman. So he is a back until he stops and sets on the line.
What is your rule reference for this?
-
He is a back. He did not set for a second on the LOS to become a lineman. So he is a back until he stops and sets on the line.
Doesn't come close to meeting the Rule 2 definition of a back so therefore he cannot legally be in motion. I agree with Robert here, this motion is illegal since he by rule cannot be both a back and on the LOS at the same time. Once he's on the LOS he's no longer a legal back, and until he sets he cannot meet the Rule 2 definition of a lineman.
Rule 2.27.4.d.1: A back is any Team A player who is not a lineman and whose head or shoulder does not break the plane of the line drawn through the waistline of the nearest Team A lineman.
-
Doesn't come close to meeting the Rule 2 definition of a back so therefore he cannot legally be in motion. I agree with Robert here, this motion is illegal since he by rule cannot be both a back and on the LOS at the same time. Once he's on the LOS he's no longer a legal back, and until he sets he cannot meet the Rule 2 definition of a lineman.
Rule 2.27.4.d.1: A back is any Team A player who is not a lineman and whose head or shoulder does not break the plane of the line drawn through the waistline of the nearest Team A lineman.
I agree he is not a back, and therefore cannot be motion. I do not see anything that disqualifies such a player from being a lineman, however. There is no requirement I see to be "set" to be a lineman.
-
I agree he is not a back, and therefore cannot be motion. I do not see anything that disqualifies such a player from being a lineman, however. There is no requirement I see to be "set" to be a lineman.
I really don't see any need to revisit the hair splitting between set, stopped, in-motion, not in-motion, etc. We know that only one player, a legal back, can be in motion at the snap. Everyone else needs to not be in-motion.
-
I really don't see any need to revisit the hair splitting between set, stopped, in-motion, not in-motion, etc. We know that only one player, a legal back, can be in motion at the snap. Everyone else needs to not be in-motion.
What makes this question more than just navel-gazing is that the answer could decide whether we have a 15-yard penalty, in addition to the 5-yard penalty we already have.
Consider the next receiver over from the motion man: Is he an end or not? Is he still eligible or not?
Eligible receivers draw a 15-yard flag if they throw a block 1-3 yards downfield.
Ineligible receivers draw a 15-yard flag if they contest a pass downfield against a defender in position.
So it's not just a question of which 5-yard penalty to announce. It could make a bigger difference than that.
-
Ineligible receivers draw a 15-yard flag if they contest a pass downfield against a defender in position.
Do you mean in a way that an eligible receiver would not draw a flag? If so, can you describe an example play?
-
What makes this question more than just navel-gazing is that the answer could decide whether we have a 15-yard penalty, in addition to the 5-yard penalty we already have.
Consider the next receiver over from the motion man: Is he an end or not? Is he still eligible or not?
Eligible receivers draw a 15-yard flag if they throw a block 1-3 yards downfield.
Ineligible receivers draw a 15-yard flag if they contest a pass downfield against a defender in position.
So it's not just a question of which 5-yard penalty to announce. It could make a bigger difference than that.
Not sure what the issue is here. I believe that we've agreed that he is not a legal back (he's illegally in motion if he's not in the backfield), and also not a legal lineman (he's "on the line" and linemen can't be in motion). Regardless of his illegal "position status" if he commits OPI he gets a flag. Whatever his "position status" (a mugwump?), he does not get an exemption from OPI if he interferes during a forward pass downfield.
-
We probably won't get a definitive answer or an editorial change until something like this happens in a high profile power 5 game. But, IMHO, the best thing to do is consider anybody in the line area (between NZ and backfield - yes, this includes "mugwumps" or "no man's land") as being on the line (regardless of his motion or where he may have come from), and consider anybody in the backfield area (not beyond waist of nearest lineman) as being a back (regardless of his motion or where he may have come from).
If such player is in the line area at the snap, treat him as a lineman, i.e., linemen inside of him are "covered", and he can be eligible/ineligible according to his location on the line and his number. If he is moving when the snap begins, you either have an illegal shift that converts to a false start (dead-ball), or illegal motion (live ball). If he covers someone, and that someone commits IDP or ITP, "bad on him."
If such player is in the backfield at the snap, then treat him as a back, i.e., he counts as a backfield player. If he is moving at the snap, then his motion is either legal (started from the backfield after a shift is completed), or illegal (moving forward or started from the line). If he is the fifth (or more) back, then you have ILF.
I wouldn't mind seeing an editorial change that not only clears this up (with the results I have described), but also declares such player illegally in motion to be ineligible (from the line or from the backfield).
Until then, if these things happen - get video. ;)
Robert
-
Do you mean in a way that an eligible receiver would not draw a flag? If so, can you describe an example play?
7-3-8-b-2: It is not offensive pass interference... When two or more eligible players are making a simultaneous and bona fide attempt to reach, catch or bat the pass. Eligible players of either team have equal rights to the ball.
We don't throw OPI flags on 50-50 balls... as long as the offensive player is eligible. Which is why I'd like to know if a man illegally in motion along the line covers another receiver up.
-
...... But, IMHO, the best thing to do is consider anybody in the line area (between NZ and backfield - yes, this includes "mugwumps" or "no man's land") as being on the line (regardless of his motion or where he may have come from), and consider anybody in the backfield area (not beyond waist of nearest lineman) as being a back (regardless of his motion or where he may have come from).
If such player is in the line area at the snap, treat him as a lineman, i.e., linemen inside of him are "covered", and he can be eligible/ineligible according to his location on the line and his number. If he is moving when the snap begins, you either have an illegal shift that converts to a false start (dead-ball), or illegal motion (live ball). If he covers someone, and that someone commits IDP or ITP, "bad on him." ......
Robert
If he's "on the line" and considered a "lineman", don't we have just the single option, false start??
-
If he's "on the line" and considered a "lineman", don't we have just the single option, false start??
I don't believe so. The illegal shift that converts to a false start requires a shift - two or more players moving simultaneously. So, if he is part of a shift and he never stops moving, then, yes, that would be a false start (dead-ball foul), as soon as the snap begins.
But, if the whole team is set for a second, then this guy - alone - does his motion thing, then it would be illegal motion (live-ball foul), at the snap.
Robert
-
7-3-8-b-2: It is not offensive pass interference... When two or more eligible players are making a simultaneous and bona fide attempt to reach, catch or bat the pass. Eligible players of either team have equal rights to the ball.
We don't throw OPI flags on 50-50 balls... as long as the offensive player is eligible. Which is why I'd like to know if a man illegally in motion along the line covers another receiver up.
Good point.
-
I don't believe so. The illegal shift that converts to a false start requires a shift - two or more players moving simultaneously. So, if he is part of a shift and he never stops moving, then, yes, that would be a false start (dead-ball foul), as soon as the snap begins.
But, if the whole team is set for a second, then this guy - alone - does his motion thing, then it would be illegal motion (live-ball foul), at the snap.
Robert
I'm not advocating converting illegal shift to false start, what I'm saying is that if we determine that the player in motion is "on the line of scrimmage" (effectively a "lineman") and is still moving at the snap, then we have a False Start since players on the line of scrimmage cannot be moving at the snap. IMHO the only player that we can have an Illegal Motion foul on is a back, and the motion player who may have started as a back pre-snap is no longer a legal back in this case if we have determined he's actually on the line of scrimmage at the snap.
-
I'm not advocating converting illegal shift to false start, what I'm saying is that if we determine that the player in motion is "on the line of scrimmage" (effectively a "lineman") and is still moving at the snap, then we have a False Start since players on the line of scrimmage cannot be moving at the snap. IMHO the only player that we can have an Illegal Motion foul on is a back, and the motion player who may have started as a back pre-snap is no longer a legal back in this case if we have determined he's actually on the line of scrimmage at the snap.
If you rule it a false start, it actually becomes a foul immediately that the player goes on the LOS. A lineman in otherwise legal motion is simply IM.
-
If you rule it a false start, it actually becomes a foul immediately that the player goes on the LOS. A lineman in otherwise legal motion is simply IM.
If we have a wide receiver on the end of the line out near the sideline and he starts to re-position himself as a tight end directly next to the tackle but the ball is snapped before he comes to a stop in his new position, he is clearly still moving in toward his new position next to the tackle, what are we calling?
-
If we have a wide receiver on the end of the line out near the sideline and he starts to re-position himself as a tight end directly next to the tackle but the ball is snapped before he comes to a stop in his new position, he is clearly still moving in toward his new position next to the tackle, what are we calling?
IM. It is not simulating the start of the play nor is he a restricted lineman, and the movement is not quick or jerky. None of the provisions of rule 7-1-2-b apply. As he is not a back and he is in motion, he does break rule 7-1-4-b-1.