Utah vs Bama- Offsides Shift- Correct call or not?

I think the refs made a mistake here, and I think they knew it. When the ref was talking to the coaches he signaled that someone had put their hand down making them not able to pick it up off the ground. on the replay though, no one put their hand down so they were all able to shift. I believe that the refs were wrong. But it also might be something about making a sudden movement which they did, so they could have been right.

IMHO, I thought the call was incorrect. If you can also recall or if you have taped the game, Coach W was conferring with the official next to him on the sideline that here is the shift/play that they were going to use and that it is legal. Not one of Utah's front seven were in a three point stances to make it illegal. They were all in two-point stances so they could adjust their position.

Before a game usually officials ask (at least the officials in our area) if there is anything they should be aware of or be looking for such as different formations, plays, etc. If I have something planned I always let them know and describe it to them. Of course, after they are maded aware and/or their approval that it is legal, there is always one of them that will throw the flag because the opposite coach says it's illegal.

Look at the old game films of the Notre Dame Box shift. From what I've seen the those film/highlights the shift similar in the backfield. Remember the Dallas Cowboys' Offensive Line shift in the late '60's and early '70's. I don't recall seeing many flags throw against them for their shift.

O' Nick got his call on that play but he and the Tide got caught with their pants down against a very good Utah team that night overall.

I thought the rule stated that you couldn't execute a movement prior to the snap with the intention of making the defense jump offside.

This is a shift, created only for that purpose... illegal, correct call.

The Dallas Cowboys did their shift everytime... therefore, if you jump offside because of it, then shame on you.

The Notre Dame Box... was the reason they created the still for 1 sec. rule... if I recall correctly.

This was an easy and correct call.

Since we play by NFHS rules, my take might be incorrect by NCAA rules...
but if they are similar- what Utah did WAS legal, but I do understand why the penalty was called.

A shift or charge prior to the snap is illegal if done with the intent of drawing the defense offside.

This is where an officials interpretation comes in, which is, in my estimation, a bad rule and one that should be changed.

We shift a lot- and in researching some bad/misinformed calls we've had over the years I discovered some things (NFHS rules only):

1. The interior OL stance (2,3, 4 point) is irrelevant. Basically, an OL may shift from a 3 point stance to another position. I've never seen it... and won't ever try it, but in the back section of the 2008 rule book, this is outlined with such an example.

2. I was told once by a very good official (after receiving a penalty after we told him "here comes the shift play") that we might be better to not say a thing pre-game, and let the officials react to it. After 10 years of not telling the officials, I think that he gave me good advice.

3. Shifting should be judged on its own merit- meaning that whether a team shifts a lot or rarely, whether it is 4th & 1 or 1st & 10 SHOULD (that is the key word) have no bearing on a call for illegal shift.

The concern from NFHS is the vast inconsistency in what constitutes a false start or illegal shift. After this season, I completely agree... certain things were "legal" in certain games and that shuld not be the case.

Bottom line (from NFHS perspective), Utah's shift WAS legal, but I am not at all surprised that they were penalized.

2008 NFHS Rule Book p. 88

"The shift rule of 2-39 plainly states that a shift is the action of one or more offensive players, who after a huddle or after taking set positions, move to a new set position before the ensuing snap. Nowhere do the rules define a set position, so the necessary inference is that a set position may be either a two, three or four point stance"

I should clarify that #1 is only in regard to a legal/illegal shift. On the same page, an interior OL (between snapper and end) can be called for a false start IF he places his hand on the ground and then lifts it from the ground (rule7-1-7c).

Sorry for the confusion. I think I may have misread that at one point and was focusing on illegal shifts. Upon re-reading an interior OL may not lift his hand, otherwise it is a false start, (which was not the case with he call in the Utah - 'Bama game as they were all in 2 point stances).

I still disagree with the penalty call (because we do stuff like that a lot), but I would certainly accept the call. It would be nice if we could eliminate all of the gray area that leaves this call up to an interpretation.

^{but isn't there some language that deals with the shift being fluid rather than abrupt?}

Believe me... I've looked (but then I misread too... :

Only this : "All shifts must be done in a manner that does not simulate action at the snap"

I had a longstanding argument with one particular officiating crew on the point of the abruptness- (we run our wing in motion a lot; similar to what GT or Navy, or any flexbone or DW team does). We were called for false start a few times because our wing left just before the snap. Nowhere in the rules (rules 7-2-1 through 7-2-8) is the speed of execution mentioned; only that it (a) may not simulate action at the snap and (b) it was not intended to cause B to encroach. The official said that we can not motion so soon before the snap; I asked him if we were simulating action at the snap or causing B to encroach... when he said "no", I told him" then it is not a penalty.

I think I won the argument- he warned us that he would call it (we had that crew 3 times in one year), but he never did after the first time when we discussed it after the call.

That's motion though... regarding the shift, we will still do what we do (similar in action to Utah's), but I always tell our guys this: "We might draw them off, we might get called for illegal shift or false start, and we might just run the play."

My take-what we do is legal, what Utah did was legal... but there are only a few certain times to run such an "A-11" shift (4th and 1 from midfield is a good time- because if you get called, you punt and play field position), and because of that the intent factor weighs in.

Again, it all has to do with simulating the snap, and whether or not the official thought that was the intent. For what it is worth, it was also emphasized that whether or not B encroaches (NFHS book p.89) is immaterial.

NCAA rules...Legal.....if illegal explain how a spread No huddle team can Fake a snap count and then everybody turn to the sideline to get a play...including OL....where is the difference?

It's an interpetation thing, and simulating the start of a play with motion is different than what you describe.

It's my opinion that that play could be run legally, but in any event it's one of those things you'd definately want to clear pre-game with the refs and make sure they know when you're going to run it.

^{Try telling that to the DL}

Not trying to be a smart a$$, but we work the heck out of that with our DL; I expect others to do the same or be penalized (it certainly helps that we do shift a lot).

Again, my issue is not whether or not it should be a penalty... I argue that it either should or should not be- and that assessment shouldn't be open to debate like it is- that's problem with the rules.

I vaguely recall when the phrasing was added that penalized those shifts done intentionally to draw off the defense (it was long ago... I think I was still playing).

Us offensive guys do countless things to intentionally fool defenses that are legal (misdirection, ball fakes, unbalanced lines, etc.). Some of the things done historically are illegal (Pop Warner having a football patch sewn on jerseys of his backs, fumblerooski, etc.).

All I really want here is a determination of legal or not- then our team will abide accordingly. It's this "well, it's kind of legal sometimes" attitude that throws me in a fit.