OT? Chiefs offside penalty in Bills game

[gindie]

Should he have been warned?  Does the Referee's explanation make sense that he wasn't warned because he was so blatantly offside (linesman couldn't see the ball?

While we're at it, I was listening to Rich Eisen, and he was pointing out that the right tackle was not lined up legally.  

[Bobref]

The procedure is exactly the same at all 3 levels of football. If it’s close, you may give the offender the courtesy of a warning. But if it’s blatant, you’ve got to call it … especially in a nationally televised game at that level. I mean, think what the narrative would have been like today if he doesn’t throw that flag. Do you think no one is going to pick up on the fact that Toney lined up in the NZ? It would be going viral before the crew got off the field. Think about sitting in the film room with your supervisor having to watch it on video … over and over and over …. In other words, think about it from the official’s perspective. It’s a no brainer.

[gindie]

On 12/11/2023 at 5:03 PM, Bobref said:

If it’s close, you may give the offender the courtesy of a warning. 

There's actually a video out there that shows the offender giving a quick glance to the side official as he approached the line, but then looking back in so fast that he wouldn't have been able to process anything the official relayed to him.

[JustRules]

There is a lot of preventative officiating that takes place throughout the game. Alignment is a key area where that takes place. Most wideouts do know to check with the wings when they get lined up, but not all do. A common question we'll get is "am I good?" usually referring to on or off the line. The challenge with that is we don't know which they are supposed to be. To be an eligible lineman you need to be breaking the waist of the snapper. The snapper's waist is about a yard behind the ball generally so if the ball is snapped at the B23, as long as part of your body is breaking the B24, you are considered on the line. To be a back you need to be behind the nearest lineman. Since that could be another eligible receiver or an interior lineman their waist could legally be the B25 using the previous example. But a wing back is often behind the waist of the snapper but breaking the waist of the tackle. And the wideouts may be one off/one on but both close enough the one who is off is not far enough back to meet the legal definition of a back. As long as they are staggered enough you'll put one on and one off. We use the term "make them legal". Where that can get tricky is if putting one of them back creates 5 in the backfield you have a foul for an illegal formation. Putting him on creates a covered up eligible number but legal formation. If the inside player goes downfield and there is a legal forward pass beyond the NZ you now have an ineligible receiver downfield and possibly illegal touching if he's the first to touch the pass.

These are all possibly going to cause warnings the first time it's seen by that team. You'll want to warn both the players involved and their coach. But if both wideouts come out and indicate to the wing they are on or off you have no choice but to treat it that way. You need to be careful letting them know they need to move to be legal especially if the snap is imminent. If they move forward and the ball is snapped before they get set you have an illegal motion (moving forward at the snap). If they move back from the LOS and the ball is snapped before they get set you have an illegal motion (lineman in motion at the snap).

As for lining up in the neutral zone, again you are going to be more lenient the further they are from the ball. Many receivers think they are fine if they are behind the front of the ball (the defense's line of scrimmage). In the example above with the nose of the ball on the B23, they'll line up with their toes close to the B23. If they are that close, we'll probably warn them the first time. I've told several receivers they need to be behind the BACK of the ball, and they are surprised. I then explain if they need to be on the line, they have a full yard they can line up and still be legally on the line if that's where they are supposed to be. The same courtesy is extended to the defensive line. If they are just breaking their side of the neutral zone, it's probably a warning and communicated through the umpire or referee to ask the DL to back up on the next play. The DBs often ask to make sure they are not in the neutral zone if they are trying to legally press the receiver. We'll let them know if they need to back up.

In the KC play, you can see the ball is clearly behind the B49. It's likely the ball was spotted with the nose of the ball on the B49 so that would be the actual location of the neutral zone. If the snapper changes the position slightly especially tipping it like you see in the photo. Thanks to the lines on the field, you can see the receiver's foot is clearly beyond the back of the B49. This is what put him BEYOND the NZ. If he was 6 inches behind the B49 he's still technically in the NZ, but that's likely only a warning. I know the NFL has made this a point of emphasis this year so maybe they would still be expected to call it.