Brazilian Noob Questions

[El Macman]

... At no time can a player #50-79 be an elgible receiver to first touch the pass.

Technical clarification - he can't touch the pass until it has been touched by an opponent or an official (not necessarily first touch). A teammate might touch it first, then he touches it (intentionally). That's a foul.

[With_Two_Flakes]

Again with offensive formations... A player in lateral motion at the snap, facing the opponent's goal line, with his head breaking the plane of the waistline of the snapper, is on the line of scrimmage?

Technically yes. So as NVFOA_Ump correctly said, only a back (which this guy isnt) can be in motion.

But don't nit pick this sort of thing. If you can move 5cm to the left and now you can see a "blade of grass" between him and the linemen, then he's a back and the motion is legal. Have a quiet word at the end of the play with the player, his captain or his coach so they know.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Agree 100% that we don't want to be too nit-picky here.  If we've got 11 in the game with 7 on the line and the guy in motion has a "blade of grass" between him and the linemen then most wing officials let that go these days.  On the other hand if he's actually in a position "with his head breaking the plane of the waistline of the snapper" while he's still moving sideways the "blade of grass" can't fit in there.

[zys]

Agree 100% that we don't want to be too nit-picky here.  If we've got 11 in the game with 7 on the line and the guy in motion has a "blade of grass" between him and the linemen then most wing officials let that go these days.  On the other hand if he's actually in a position "with his head breaking the plane of the waistline of the snapper" while he's still moving sideways the "blade of grass" can't fit in there.

If this is the case, what's the situation? Illegal motion?

[NVFOA_Ump]

If this is the case, what's the situation? Illegal motion?

Certainly another of those judgment calls, but yes, the correct call would be Illegal Motion since to be legal motion we need the minimum "blade of grass" separation so we can say that the man in motion is not moving forward and is in the backfield at the snap.  Another judgment option would be to advise the potential offender that he needs to stay in the backfield if he continues his motion, and the next time he doesn't he'll get the flag.  A little preventive officiating.

[Diablo]

Another judgment option would be to advise the potential offender that he needs to stay in the backfield if he continues his motion, and the next time he doesn't he'll get the flag.  A little preventive officiating.

Not a good idea to threaten calling a foul the next time.

[El Macman]

Not a good idea to threaten calling a foul the next time.

Maybe not, but that is precisely what is done for certain conditions at the FBS level, as directed by the coordinators. Wide guys (or motion guys) not lined up to be clear as whether they are on the line or in the backfield, motion guys shaving fractionally forward at the snap, defenders with hands or facemask in the NZ, backs leaning forward ever so slightly at the snap, etc. Warn 'em the first time, notify his position coach that he was warned, then bust 'em after that.

[Diablo]

Maybe not, but that is precisely what is done for certain conditions at the FBS level, as directed by the coordinators. Wide guys (or motion guys) not lined up to be clear as whether they are on the line or in the backfield, motion guys shaving fractionally forward at the snap, defenders with hands or facemask in the NZ, backs leaning forward ever so slightly at the snap, etc. Warn 'em the first time, notify his position coach that he was warned, then bust 'em after that.

Explaining what's legal and illegal is good.
Threatening to flag it the next time is asking for trouble.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Not a good idea to threaten calling a foul the next time.

I agree my choice of words should have been more politically correct.  Simply stating that the motion was not legal and why would suffice.

[zys]

Thanks everyone for answering. I believe that now I can move on to a new topic.

A. R. 3-5-2-IX has a situation with late substitutions by Team A. It clearly states that Team B has the same rights to substitute players and, therefor, the umpire tries to prevent the snap, but can't. My doubt is: if Team A makes late substitutions, gets set for the snap while Team B is substituting in response, in the case the umpire does prevent the snap, but the play clock expires, what is the ruling?

[Kalle]

See A.R. 3-5-2-V.

[Aussie-Zebra]

I strongly suggest you get the BAFRA/EFAF manual. It's the best written and most complete officiating manual I have seen. And I've seen the ones from NF, CCA, NFL stuff, JUCO stuff.

I'm liking the BAFRA manual for its portability being digital rather than hard copy, making access immediate and not waiting 2 weeks for delivery - and being digital you can do a online search within the document.

Which do you prefer BAFRA or CCA and why ?

[zys]

See A.R. 3-5-2-V.

A. R. 3-5-2-V states that either team may be charged with delay of game. In the case I mentioned is Team B the one that fouled?

[Kalle]

A. R. 3-5-2-V states that either team may be charged with delay of game. In the case I mentioned is Team B the one that fouled?

It depends on how promptly you deem team B to have reacted. If team A substituted so late that team B had no chance, it's a foul on team A, but if team B delays, it's on team B.

[With_Two_Flakes]

I'm liking the BAFRA manual for its portability being digital rather than hard copy, making access immediate and not waiting 2 weeks for delivery - and being digital you can do a online search within the document.

Which do you prefer BAFRA or CCA and why ?

For me, the BAFRA/EFAF manual obviously. 

Even thought I'm a bit of a Luddite (I still buy music on vinyl, I still wear stirrup socks, I like to be able to hold a Rule book or Mech Manual in my hand) I have to admit find it quite useful to be able to do online searches.
For a large country like Australia, I guess the portability issue helps too. I don't know what the Australian postal service is like for speed and price but however fast they are, internet is faster and cheaper. I think the pricing for E-copies and license to translate into a countries own language are reasonable

It would be good if it became the standard for the Rest of the World. There are already reps from many different countries on the Ctte that writes it. I guess I'm somewhat biased as I'm one of that Ctte.

[Aussie-Zebra]

Steve - why do you think its better than CCA ?

[With_Two_Flakes]

Steve - why do you think its better than CCA ?

Tony - sent you a PM. Dont want us to be hijacking zys's thread....

[zys]

Tony - sent you a PM. Dont want us to be hijacking zys's thread....

It was interesting...

Continuing with my questions...

"A player blocked by an opponent into a scrimmage kick that has crossed the neutral zone shall not, while inbounds, be deemed to have touched the
kick" (Rule 6-3-4). In NFL rules, if the blocked player was active blocking, the touching is not disregarded. Is it true in NCAA rules too?

[El Macman]

It was interesting...

Continuing with my questions...

"A player blocked by an opponent into a scrimmage kick that has crossed the neutral zone shall not, while inbounds, be deemed to have touched the
kick" (Rule 6-3-4). In NFL rules, if the blocked player was active blocking, the touching is not disregarded. Is it true in NCAA rules too?

You won't find a definitive answer to your question. The concept of "active or passive" as it relates to a player that gets forced into a loose ball is not addressed officially by NCAA rules or any interpretation. Those concepts have been offered by NFL folks to NCAA folks. Some NCAA folks may use those concepts, but I'm sure it is, at best, conference specific, if even that formal. Certainly, it is something that is worthy of attention by RR, at least within the "Philosophy Document," if not by formal interpretation.

[With_Two_Flakes]

It was interesting...

In that case, Tony please feel free to forward my PM to zys, I dont have a copy of it or would do it myself...

Continuing with my questions...

"A player blocked by an opponent into a scrimmage kick that has crossed the neutral zone shall not, while inbounds, be deemed to have touched the
kick" (Rule 6-3-4). In NFL rules, if the blocked player was active blocking, the touching is not disregarded. Is it true in NCAA rules too?

None of the senior US clinicians has ever told us in the UK to call it like the NFL do. So we don't. But it's a great question, I'll be sure to ask our clinician this year about it.

[Osric Pureheart]

Sounds like the concept behind something I read about "The Dance".  The gist of it was, when you have two players engaged in a block, and the ball hits one of them, forced touching depends on whether the guy hit was leading the dance.

If he was, and therefore was winning the block, he therefore logically can't have been blocked into the ball, and he's touched it.
If he wasn't, and therefore was losing the block, he therefore must have been blocked into the ball.

It sounded like such a sound philosophy that I never questioned it or double-checked to see if it was in our manual...

[zys]

Another NFL-NCAA rules difference: I believe that in NFL rules a fair catch signal loses effect when the ball hits the ground, is it the same in NCAA rules?

[Diablo]

Another NFL-NCAA rules difference: I believe that in NFL rules a fair catch signal loses effect when the ball hits the ground, is it the same in NCAA rules?

Can the receiver catch the ball after it hits the ground?
Which effect are you inquirying about?

[zys]

Can the receiver catch the ball after it hits the ground?
Which effect are you inquirying about?

Take this example:

The kick is in flight when the PR signals for the fair catch. Before he catches it, the ball hits the ground and bounces in his direction. He then catches the ball. In this case, can he advance the ball and be tackled?

[Getting Fat]

zys - think of it this way:

A fair catch signal precludes the signaler and all teammates from advancing ball, and precludes the signaler from blocking.  If the official is on top of his game he will kill the play once B gets possession and you need not worry about advancing or tackling.