Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target
  • 0

Penalty or no?


DE

Question

These new motions appear to be the new pick concept.  Instead of an offensive receiver "picking" the defender, the motion creates the defender (in man coverage) to get picked by his own teammate.

Should the wing official have tossed a flag here?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0
2 hours ago, Bobref said:

I think we might be disagreeing because we’re answering two different questions. Your question is “did the receiver turn upfield to any extent before the snap?” The question I’m answering is “should that wing official have thrown the flag for illegal motion at the snap?” We might both be right.

 

2 hours ago, DE said:

If the answer is yes to the 1st question, then yes should be the answer to the 2nd question.  Correct?

And therein lies your disconnect: you don’t realize that these are two distinct concepts. It was not my intention to turn this into a mini-clinic. But it is the Officiating Forum, after all. So, why not?

Your approach is flawed because it treats the black and white letter of the rule like it was chiseled onto stone tablets and brought down from the mountain top. Rather, the rules are guidelines that attempt to strike a competitive balance and enhance player safety when interpreted and implemented in accordance with the purpose and intent behind the rule.

The concepts are distinct because the first — whether the player was moving toward the opponent’s goal line at the start of the snap — is objectively ascertainable. We can use replay, slow motion, even frame-by-frame analysis if we need to. We can definitely answer the question, albeit often not at game speed. Calling a non-safety foul, however, is not a black and white process. It involves a set of factors that must enter into answering the question whether a foul should be called.

In this particular instance, there are two basic reasons you do not call this a foul. The first is a basic principle of officiating: If it’s not a safety-related foul, you must be 100% certain before throwing the flag. The “preponderance of the evidence,” is not good enough. Nor is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” 99% doesn’t get it. Your initial post said “But, did Adams move forward before the snap? I think he did. Very close.” That was after the benefit of as many replays and reviews as you wanted. That does not sound like 100% certainty to me.

The second reason is that the philosophy to be used in implementing the rule takes into account the limits of human perception. On this play, the wing official has multiple responsibilities, which include focusing on the snap, detecting false starts or encroachment on the line of scrimmage, and the legality of the player in motion 2-3 yards behind the line of scrimmage, and moving directly at him at speed. The player’s motion is legal unless he was moving forward at the start of the snap. The snap begins with the first tiny movement of the ball by the snapper, other than in adjustment. If you are telling me that you, as that wing official who may be 20-30 yds. from the ball, can detect that first tiny movement of the ball by the snapper, and simultaneously compare it to the vector of the player 2-3 yds. behind the line, I would say you have vastly overestimated your ability, or that of any official. That’s why the proper mechanic here is to look at the man in motion primarily. There are other officials looking for false starts and snap infractions, but only you are responsible for that motion man. When he turns up, then you look to the ball. If the snap is underway, then there’s no foul. Is it possible that the turn upfield actually precedes the snap by the time it takes you to turn your attention from the motion man to the snap? Yes, it is. But remember the basic philosophy that we must be 100% certain to justify calling a non-safety foul? That is why we don’t nitpick this foul in a situation like this. There are many other examples of similar situations in officiating.

Incorporating this type of critical distinction between what “can” be called and what “should” be called into your approach is a difficult process for many officials. Some never get the distinction. Others understand, but deny that any distinction is proper. Those are called “rulebook officials.” The label is not generally intended as flattery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Thanks for the mini-clinic Bob. Great job!

I was expecting something different when I read all the comments before watching the video. The action the receiver makes here would definitely warrant an illegal motion if it's done before the snap and he's still moving forward at the snap (he could do this and level off again parallel before the snap). If you have this action strictly as turning up field before the snap you have a false start. If it's just him bending/curving forward at the snap then it's illegal motion. I thought it was close when I saw it the first time not expecting him to do this, but I agree with Bob it wasn't obvious enough to flag it. When I watched again and tried to stop it when he makes the first move, it's entirely possible the ball has already started moving.

Adams should be careful on this because he could easily turn forward before the snap because he can't see behind him to know exactly when the snapper starts moving his hand. He's playing with fire and could easily get burned on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 1/18/2021 at 3:59 PM, Bobref said:

 

And therein lies your disconnect: you don’t realize that these are two distinct concepts. It was not my intention to turn this into a mini-clinic. But it is the Officiating Forum, after all. So, why not?

Your approach is flawed because it treats the black and white letter of the rule like it was chiseled onto stone tablets and brought down from the mountain top. Rather, the rules are guidelines that attempt to strike a competitive balance and enhance player safety when interpreted and implemented in accordance with the purpose and intent behind the rule.

The concepts are distinct because the first — whether the player was moving toward the opponent’s goal line at the start of the snap — is objectively ascertainable. We can use replay, slow motion, even frame-by-frame analysis if we need to. We can definitely answer the question, albeit often not at game speed. Calling a non-safety foul, however, is not a black and white process. It involves a set of factors that must enter into answering the question whether a foul should be called.

In this particular instance, there are two basic reasons you do not call this a foul. The first is a basic principle of officiating: If it’s not a safety-related foul, you must be 100% certain before throwing the flag. The “preponderance of the evidence,” is not good enough. Nor is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” 99% doesn’t get it. Your initial post said “But, did Adams move forward before the snap? I think he did. Very close.” That was after the benefit of as many replays and reviews as you wanted. That does not sound like 100% certainty to me.

The second reason is that the philosophy to be used in implementing the rule takes into account the limits of human perception. On this play, the wing official has multiple responsibilities, which include focusing on the snap, detecting false starts or encroachment on the line of scrimmage, and the legality of the player in motion 2-3 yards behind the line of scrimmage, and moving directly at him at speed. The player’s motion is legal unless he was moving forward at the start of the snap. The snap begins with the first tiny movement of the ball by the snapper, other than in adjustment. If you are telling me that you, as that wing official who may be 20-30 yds. from the ball, can detect that first tiny movement of the ball by the snapper, and simultaneously compare it to the vector of the player 2-3 yds. behind the line, I would say you have vastly overestimated your ability, or that of any official. That’s why the proper mechanic here is to look at the man in motion primarily. There are other officials looking for false starts and snap infractions, but only you are responsible for that motion man. When he turns up, then you look to the ball. If the snap is underway, then there’s no foul. Is it possible that the turn upfield actually precedes the snap by the time it takes you to turn your attention from the motion man to the snap? Yes, it is. But remember the basic philosophy that we must be 100% certain to justify calling a non-safety foul? That is why we don’t nitpick this foul in a situation like this. There are many other examples of similar situations in officiating.

Incorporating this type of critical distinction between what “can” be called and what “should” be called into your approach is a difficult process for many officials. Some never get the distinction. Others understand, but deny that any distinction is proper. Those are called “rulebook officials.” The label is not generally intended as flattery.

Do you think this rule should be eliminated from the rule book?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
22 hours ago, JustRules said:

If you have this action strictly as turning up field before the snap you have a false start. If it's just him bending/curving forward at the snap then it's illegal motion.

This is a point well worth noting. The philosophy JR explained has been in effect at the collegiate level for a while, and is thankfully beginning to trickle down to the high school ranks. If the man in motion beats the snap by turning abruptly upfield early, that “simulates the start of the play” and is properly called a false start, not a live ball foul for illegal motion. It’s always better to shut the play down, if there’s a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

To be honest DE isn't the one exhibiting butt hurt.  

 

Others just seem to think its impossible that anyone could have a logical reason to disagree with them.

I'm going to guess that person might speak up fairly soon....🤪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I feel like the WR is starting to move forward with the snap. It looks worse than it is in full speed. It is one of those things where the wings should communicate "Hey, he looked like he was moving forward in his motion on that last one, but it wasn't something that I felt was enough to call. Can you watch it on your side too and let me know?" 

You may see that play ran several more times and you may not. I go by the rule of thumb of looking at the hips. if they look to be turned endzone to endzone with motion occuring, it probably warrants a penalty. if not, tread lightly my friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 1/20/2021 at 1:28 PM, US31 said:

To be honest DE isn't the one exhibiting butt hurt.  

 

Others just seem to think its impossible that anyone could have a logical reason to disagree with them.

I'm going to guess that person might speak up fairly soon....🤪

Correct.  Never was.  I got a better understanding of other's thought processes on possible game changing plays.  Took some really good things out of this and ignored quite a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...