Motion question

[ChicagoZebra]

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?

[NVFOA_Ump]

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.   

[Morningrise]

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.

[JasonTX]

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".

[Kalle]

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.

[Morningrise]

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.

[JasonTX]

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?

[NVFOA_Ump]

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.

[NVFOA_Ump]

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.

[ElvisLives]

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

[TxBJ]

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.

[NVFOA_Ump]

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.

[bossman72]

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.

[ChicagoZebra]

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.

[Morningrise]

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.

[ChicagoZebra]

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.

[NVFOA_Ump]

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.

[ChicagoZebra]

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.

[bossman72]

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.

[ChicagoZebra]

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.

[TxBJ]

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.

[NVFOA_Ump]

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.

[#92]

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.

[NVFOA_Ump]

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.

[TxBJ]

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.