Rules of the Game:

[Spurticus]

I got this Idea about a help thread, and I'm going to give this a shot and see how it goes over. If this works out, we can try puting one of these in The Sarge (for Baseball), and Fowl Shots (for Basketball).

This thread will be for anyone who has a question about the rules of Football, or just a general question about the game (terminology, origins etc...) We have gotten a few new female members lately, and we have some on the board already, that have stated they wish they knew more about the sport of football, but loved the Gamecocks anyway. CarolinaNurse said she attended Spurrier's Womens Clinic last spring to learn more about football too. So I'm thinking we can help them out here, as well as a lot of us guys who know the game, but still aren't quite sure about this rule, or that term.

Anyone can ask any question they'd like, and between all the members of the board, I'm sure we can come up with the rule, definition, or reason. Don't be shy, ask anything you'd like to know. THERE ARE NO RIDICULOUS QUESTIONS.

[Gamecock History]

Well, I know the rules pretty darn good. But there is one question that I have never figured out.

Why does the halfback line up behind the fullback? The "quarterback" by name lines up a quarter of the way back, a "halfback" should line up half the way back, and then the "fullback" should line up all the way back. Quarter, half, and full is the logical way they should line up behind one another. So why do they line up quarter, then full, then half? Back when football was first invented did the halfback usually line up in front of the fullback or something?

[mickeyrivers]

Well, I know the rules pretty darn good. But there is one question that I have never figured out.

Why does the halfback line up behind the fullback? The "quarterback" by name lines up a quarter of the way back, a "halfback" should line up half the way back, and then the "fullback" should line up all the way back. Quarter, half, and full is the logical way they should line up behind one another. So why do they line up quarter, then full, then half? Back when football was first invented did the halfback usually line up in front of the fullback or something?
the terms actually come from scottish rugby, where the players are named just like that according to their distance from the forwards. in rugby, the english terms won over but we still have the scottish terms for football. i don't think the i formation was really being used when football was first created either.

[Gamecock History]

Ok, here is another.

Why is it when a player fumbles the ball out the back of the end zone before crossing into the end zone is it a touchback for the other team? Why does the other team gain possesion on that fumble, but if you just fumble it out of bounds your team keeps possesion of the ball? Why is it any different fumbling it out the end zone as compared to fumbling it out of bounds at the 1 yard line?

I understand the way the rule is stated and when it happens, but I don't understand why. It does not make any sense to me.

[cockyace]

I've always wondered about that myself so I did a little researching. Originally the fullback was lined up behind two halfbacks.
E T G C G T E
.......QB........
....HB... HB....
.......FB........

The fullback was the good up the middle rusher and was a big strong player. As the game of football developed the "T" formation and its variants became popular, in this position the fullback is lined up in the middle of two halfbacks (at a depth that the current fullback normally is).

E T G C G T E
.......QB.......
...HB FB HB...

As the game continued to develop and the "I" formation became popular the backs lined up behind each other as is the norm today.

E T G C G T E
.......QB.................. WR
.......FB
.......HB

Because the player immediately behind the quaterback was still used as a good up the middle rusher and blocker (and big) he retained the name fullback. The other players who were running backs retained their name halfback. Here is a wikipedia article that goes into more detail about the naming convention and the evolution of football for those that are interested WIKI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_Canadian_football_position_names)

[Gamecock History]

Cool, thanks for posting that info and link.

[USCya]

Good stuff!

[cockyace]

Why is it when a player fumbles the ball out the back of the end zone before crossing into the end zone is it a touchback for the other team? Why does the other team gain possesion on that fumble, but if you just fumble it out of bounds your team keeps possesion of the ball? Why is it any different fumbling it out the end zone as compared to fumbling it out of bounds at the 1 yard line?


Note: this is only my opinion of why it happens, I don't know for sure if it was the logic behind the rule but its just my opinion (and it makes sense to me).

I think the difference is that once a team is in the end zone there is no place further back that they can go. If you are tackled in the endzone or run it out of the endzone it is a safety (2 points and a free kick). But, if you fumble it out of the endzone the defense did not force you down or out, therefore they don't get points and the advantage of a free kick (usually a punt from the 20 where they can get better field position). But because the offense can't really recover the fumble in the endzone (fall on it, not recover and run it out of the endzone) without it being a safety the ball must go to the defense and they are given a touchback.

When your not in the endzone and fumble out of bounds each team theoretically has the same opportunity to get the fumble but there is no way to tell who would have gotten it. Therefore the ball is retained by the offense where the ball went out of bounds.

[Gamecock History]

Note: this is only my opinion of why it happens, I don't know for sure if it was the logic behind the rule but its just my opinion (and it makes sense to me).

I think the difference is that once a team is in the end zone there is no place further back that they can go. If you are tackled in the endzone or run it out of the endzone it is a safety (2 points and a free kick). But, if you fumble it out of the endzone the defense did not force you down or out, therefore they don't get points and the advantage of a free kick (usually a punt from the 20 where they can get better field position). But because the offense can't really recover the fumble in the endzone (fall on it, not recover and run it out of the endzone) without it being a safety the ball must go to the defense and they are given a touchback.

When your not in the endzone and fumble out of bounds each team theoretically has the same opportunity to get the fumble but there is no way to tell who would have gotten it. Therefore the ball is retained by the offense where the ball went out of bounds.

I might not have understood what you were saying but I think you are talking about a team fumbling the ball in their own end zone. I am talking about a team fumbling the ball forward right before they score a touchdown and the ball goes out the back of the endzone. Let's say the ball does not make it out of the endzone after it is fumbled, if the defense gets the ball they can recover it in the endzone for a touchback or they can run it out in an attempt to score a touchdown at the other end of the field. If the offense recovers the ball in the endzone I don't know if it would be a touchdown or if they would get it back where they fumbled it. Not sure about that.

But either way, I don't see why if the ball makes it out of the endzone is the defense rewarded with a touchback as if they had recovered it. The last person that had possession of the ball was the offense, so why would that team not keep possession of the ball?

[Spurticus]

Ok, here is another.

Why is it when a player fumbles the ball out the back of the end zone before crossing into the end zone is it a touchback for the other team? Why does the other team gain possesion on that fumble, but if you just fumble it out of bounds your team keeps possesion of the ball? Why is it any different fumbling it out the end zone as compared to fumbling it out of bounds at the 1 yard line?

I understand the way the rule is stated and when it happens, but I don't understand why. It does not make any sense to me.


There are a lot of little rules that don't seem to make sense to us, but they have been written in to prevent a player from taking advantage of another rule. Coaches and players will do things "shady" to gain an advantage, but something that the rules of the game will not prevent you from doing. In turn, when it happens enough, the rules committee will write (or re-write) a rule to prevent that from happening. That said:


I actually asked my High School coach this question once, and this is the explaination he gave me. I can't verify it in print, but it does make sense to me.
The original rule is that if a player fumbled the ball and it went out of bounds through the back of the endzone, the team with the last pocession (the offense) got the ball on the 3 yard line. Smart coaches prior to the rule change, would tell players to shovel the ball underhand through the endzone, if they were about to be tackled close to the goal, but short of a first down. Example: a team decides to go for it with 4th and two or so, from the 8 yard line. The player who was about to be hit short of the first down marker, would shovel the ball through the end zone, and the ball would be moved to the three with the offense still having pocession (First and goal). This was taught to players (especially at the highschool level), and was even used in cases just to gain a first down. (Pitch it to the back at the 10, and he shovels it hard through the end zone).... First and goal from the 3. Thus the rule had to be changed to prevent this from happening.

[morgan n' 7]

This was taught to players (especially at the highschool level), and was even used in cases just to gain a first down. (Pitch it to the back at the 10, and he shovels it hard through the end zone).... First and goal from the 3. Thus the rule had to be changed to prevent this from happening. I too have never understood that rule. That makes since now. So the would try to make it look like an unintentional fumble through the endzone to get the yardage or first down.

[Gamecock History]

Hmmm, but why wouldn't the rule about not being able to gain yards fumbling out of bounds prevent that as well?

Because the same thing could happen in the middle of the field. Let's say you are on the 40 yard line and it is 3rd and 3. You are about to be tackled near the sideline for a loss, why not just toss the ball forward underhand out of bounds beyond the first down marker? If that does happen now days, you get the ball where you fumbled it, not for a first down. So I figured that rule would prevent the scenario you mentioned above. I think the rule should be if you fumble the ball on the 1 yard line or the 3 yard line going into the end zone and the ball rolls out the back of the end zone, the offense should get the ball where they fumbled it at. Just like they would if they fumbled it out of bounds at the 40.

Or am I missing something?

[morgan n' 7]

That's true GH.....

OK, I'm back to my original opinion. That rule makes no sense.

Another rule that I don't understand is the QB being able to throw the ball away outside the pocket. That penalizes the defense for a good play.

[Gamecock History]

Well, kind of but not really. Because even though the defense is not rewarded by getting a sack they are rewarded by accomplishing their goal of preventing the offense from gaining any yards on that play. If they force him out of the pocket and he throws it out of bounds then the defense did their job and kept the offense from gaining yards.

I think it is a pretty fair rule. If the QB could throw it away while still in the pocket then I would agree with you.

[morgan n' 7]

Well, kind of but not really. Because even though the defense is not rewarded by getting a sack they are rewarded by accomplishing their goal of preventing the offense from gaining any yards on that play. If they force him out of the pocket and he throws it out of bounds then the defense did their job and kept the offense from gaining yards.

I think it is a pretty fair rule. If the QB could throw it away while still in the pocket then I would agree with you. Well, if you're about to get a sack for 1 to 10 to what ever yard loss...you've been penalized if the QB is allowed to simply throw the ball away. As a defense you've earned that loss of yardage.

[Spurticus]

Hmmm, but why wouldn't the rule about not being able to gain yards fumbling out of bounds prevent that as well?

Because the same thing could happen in the middle of the field. Let's say you are on the 40 yard line and it is 3rd and 3. You are about to be tackled near the sideline for a loss, why not just toss the ball forward underhand out of bounds beyond the first down marker? If that does happen now days, you get the ball where you fumbled it, not for a first down. So I figured that rule would prevent the scenario you mentioned above. I think the rule should be if you fumble the ball on the 1 yard line or the 3 yard line going into the end zone and the ball rolls out the back of the end zone, the offense should get the ball where they fumbled it at. Just like they would if they fumbled it out of bounds at the 40.

Or am I missing something?

I think originally, the out of bounds fumble rule was that you got the ball at the spot that it went out of bounds. That rule was changed to prevent teams from running near the sidelines, and shoveling it forward to gain yardage / first down if they were getting hit shy of a first down, or just to gain some additional yardage.

[USCya]

Well, kind of but not really. Because even though the defense is not rewarded by getting a sack they are rewarded by accomplishing their goal of preventing the offense from gaining any yards on that play. If they force him out of the pocket and he throws it out of bounds then the defense did their job and kept the offense from gaining yards.

I think it is a pretty fair rule. If the QB could throw it away while still in the pocket then I would agree with you.

The problem I see with this rule is that a reciever does not even have to be in the area... heck the guy could throw it into the stands as long as it goes beyond the line of scrimage. I would think that they could modify the rule a bit.

[cack]

My question with the fumbling the ball thing is ... since when you fumble the ball in play the offense gets the ball where it goes out of bounds ... if it was a close play for a first down ... why doesn't the guy just "fumble" the ball fowards and make the extra in or so needed ... just make sure it goes out ... he can't throw it because that'll be a foward pass and all that stuff ... but if he just reached for it and "fumbled" then it would work right??

[Gamecock History]

I think originally, the out of bounds fumble rule was that you got the ball at the spot that it went out of bounds. That rule was changed to prevent teams from running near the sidelines, and shoveling it forward to gain yardage / first down if they were getting hit shy of a first down, or just to gain some additional yardage.

So why wouldn't that same rule take care of the problem at the goal line of teams fumbling forward (through the endzone) for a first down?

I just don't see why the defense is rewarded since they never took possession of the ball.

[Gamecock History]

My question with the fumbling the ball thing is ... since when you fumble the ball in play the offense gets the ball where it goes out of bounds ... if it was a close play for a first down ... why doesn't the guy just "fumble" the ball fowards and make the extra in or so needed ... just make sure it goes out ... he can't throw it because that'll be a foward pass and all that stuff ... but if he just reached for it and "fumbled" then it would work right??

Nope, you get the ball back where you fumbled it at, not where the ball went out of bounds. And I think that is what should happen at the goal line as well.

[Spurticus]

I too have never understood that rule. That makes since now. So the would try to make it look like an unintentional fumble through the endzone to get the yardage or first down.

Actually, you didn't have to make it look unintentional. The rules didn't specify what caused the fumble, and you can't tell an official to judge intent, so coaches would just tell a player, "if it looks like you're going to get hit shy of the marker, shovel it as hard as you can through the end zone". The rule says the last team with pocession gets it at the 3. Not what you'd call "Honest", but the rule is the rule. So to keep it from happening, change the rule

[Gamecock History]

The problem I see with this rule is that a reciever does not even have to be in the area... heck the guy could throw it into the stands as long as it goes beyond the line of scrimage. I would think that they could modify the rule a bit.

I think it is just to keep the game interesting. It would cut down on touchdown drives if the QB could never "throw the ball away". I think defenses would be more productive in stopping drives if that was the rule.

[USCya]

I got one that I really do not understand...Riddle me this Batman...

Monday Night Football - Falcons and sAints

Vick scored on a play that clearly showd the ball not crossing the goal line but his hand did (over the pilon <sp>). I do not quite get the rule and how this would be any different as to a full back breaking the plain of the goal line with his helmet but the ball not crossing the line.

Help me I am sooo confused :-o

[Gamecock History]

Actually, you didn't have to make it look unintentional. The rules didn't specify what caused the fumble, and you can't tell an official to judge intent, so coaches would just tell a player, "if it looks like you're going to get hit shy of the marker, shovel it as hard as you can through the end zone". The rule says the last team with pocession gets it at the 3. Not what you'd call "Honest", but the rule is the rule. So to keep it from happening, change the rule

But Spurticus, why wouldn't the same rule that works all the way down the field in regards to fumbling out of bounds work at the goal line?

The offense would get the ball wherever they fumbled it. That would prevent them from doing it on purpose but at the same time it would not reward the defense for doing nothing.

[cack]

maybe it's pros then that get it where it goes out

[morgan n' 7]

Actually, you didn't have to make it look unintentional. The rules didn't specify what caused the fumble, and you can't tell an official to judge intent, so coaches would just tell a player, "if it looks like you're going to get hit shy of the marker, shovel it as hard as you can through the end zone". The rule says the last team with pocession gets it at the 3. Not what you'd call "Honest", but the rule is the rule. So to keep it from happening, change the rule Oh. Well If the rules didn't specify at the time, I got ya.

[Spurticus]

I got one that I really do not understand...Riddle me this Batman...

Monday Night Football - Falcons and sAints

Vick scored on a play that clearly showd the ball not crossing the goal line but his hand did (over the pilon <sp>). I do not quite get the rule and how this would be any different as to a full back breaking the plain of the goal line with his helmet but the ball not crossing the line.

Help me I am sooo confused :-o

Had to be a poor call by an official there. The rule says that the ball has to cross the plane of the goal line, not any part of the player. I didn't see that game, but I've seen hundreds of replays where a players arm, leg, head was in the endzone, but the ball was not, and there was no Touchdown. This is the rule here.

[theuscerock]

Why isnt spiking the ball to stop the clock intentional grounding? He is inside the pocket?

[Spurticus]

But Spurticus, why wouldn't the same rule that works all the way down the field in regards to fumbling out of bounds work at the goal line?

The offense would get the ball wherever they fumbled it. That would prevent them from doing it on purpose but at the same time it would not reward the defense for doing nothing.

I'm Guessing that that part of the rule had not been "Bent" by Players / Coaches enough for it to be addressed by the rules committee. That, or the Rules committee didn't see the connection between the two. And (I'm guessing here) unless it starts to become a "Shifty" practice from coaches or players, it may not be worth addressing. ........It's like the fumble rule in the NFL that inside two minutes, if a ball is fumbled by the offensive team, only the player fumbling the football can pick it up and advance it. Otherwise, if another Offensive player recovers the ball, it goes back to the spot the first player fumbled the football.... That was put in after the "Imaculate Deception" play in the late 70's where Oakland was trailing San Diego with seconds to play. S/D hit Ken Stabler behind the line for what would have been the game ending sack, but Kenny shoveled the ball forward toward a team mate (Pete Banaszak-sp?) I think it was, acted like he was picking the ball up, but kicked it into the end zone towards another team mate (Dave Casper), who fell on the ball for the score to win the game.
The rules committee saw the potential here for this to become an abused bending of the rules, so they simply re-wrote the rule to say, "Inside two minutes, if a player on the offense fumbles the football, only the player that fumbled it can advance it. If it's recoverd by a team mate on offense, it goes back to the spot where it was fumbled by the first player.

[Spurticus]

Why isnt spiking the ball to stop the clock intentional grounding? He is inside the pocket?

I remember when this rule was put in place. This was just a special rule that was written in to allow a team to stop the clock safely. It got to where when a player wanted to stop the clock late in the game, they'd have to send a receiver downfield, and the QB would throw it in his general direction (way over his head) to stop the clock. But the guys on defense would "Tee Off" on a Quarterback to try to prevent it, or try to stop it, so they just said "Spike it" and we'll give you the time out. .............. Not saying it was the right thing to do, but we don't always agree with the rules. I think safety has gotten to out of hand in football myself, but that's the rules.

[USCya]

Had to be a poor call by an official there. The rule says that the ball has to cross the plane of the goal line, not any part of the player. I didn't see that game, but I've seen hundreds of replays where a players arm, leg, head was in the endzone, but the ball was not, and there was no Touchdown. This is the rule here.

Spurticus,

Almost the same thing happening right now on the Panthers game. They made refference to the Falcons game last weeks as well. I can't wait to see how this review goes...

[Spurticus]

Spurticus,

Almost the same thing happening right now on the Panthers game. They made refference to the Falcons game last weeks as well. I can't wait to see how this review goes...

I'm watching the SD / Ind game. How did the review turn out?

[USCya]

TD...

Unreal... The ball never crossed the line. I wonder if they were considering it a "Push out".

[YouCanNeverTell]

The only "push-outs" are when a receiver goes up for a ball and would have come down in-bounds had he not been pushed. The idea is to push-out a player when he is near the sidelines.

[gamecockdeke]

I watched the monday night game with the falcons, and the announcers were saying that the goalline runs infinitely, and that as long as the ball crosses the line, only a part of the body has to be actually in the endzone. I interpreted this to be only when actually crossing the goaline.

[Spurticus]

I'm only guessing here since I didn't see either of these plays. I'm assuming that these incidents were from a player rushing to the corner of the goal line, and being shoved out of bounds as he is about to cross. Correct?

If that's the case, then yes, you do only have to get a part of you body across the goal line, if you step through the corner. Again, guessing they started in bounds, and then were pushed across the corner, and went out of bounds in the end zone. When a players is pushed out of bounds on the sidelines in play, the officals are watching to see if the feet are in bounds (one or both. according to what game... college or pro). The rule is the ball is spotted where the feet are last in bounds, as it is impossible for an official to judge where the ball is at the time the players feet are ruled in. Even in normal spotting, it is never really accurately placed on the field, it's simply the best guess by the referee as to where the ball was when a player was tackled.
That's why if a pass in the end zone is near the sidelines, then only the feet need to be in bounds for it to be ruled a touchdown. But moving straight in (goal line plays, or where a player is CLEARLY in bounds), then the ball itself has to cross the plane of the goal line regardless of where a players feet, head, arms ect... are for it to be ruled a Touchdown.

[spurrierforpres]

I've got a question on the "no contact after 5 yards" rule. I understand that the DB can "bump" a reciever in the 5 yard cushion before being called for interference. But, how does that work on a screen play. Obviously, a screen is well behind the 5 yard mark, so can a DB or LB plow the RB/TE/whoever the screen pass is to before the ball gets there?

[Spurticus]

I've got a question on the "no contact after 5 yards" rule. I understand that the DB can "bump" a reciever in the 5 yard cushion before being called for interference. But, how does that work on a screen play. Obviously, a screen is well behind the 5 yard mark, so can a DB or LB plow the RB/TE/whoever the screen pass is to before the ball gets there?

Yes he can, as long as he does it before the ball has left the QB's hands. The reason you don't see that done is because of that reason. Screens are usually pretty deceptive plays (if run correctly), and most of the time, they're thrown to a RB that has stepped up into the pocket to fake a block (sometimes, they even engauge a lineman for a split second to make it look more like a pass downfield). If run smoothly, they go pretty quickly, and a DB/LB doesn't have time to close on the receiver to hit him before the QB releases the pass. But it is legal to do that if a they smell it out, and have the time.

How are you doing?

[Spurticus]

I've got a question on the "no contact after 5 yards" rule. I understand that the DB can "bump" a reciever in the 5 yard cushion before being called for interference. But, how does that work on a screen play. Obviously, a screen is well behind the 5 yard mark, so can a DB or LB plow the RB/TE/whoever the screen pass is to before the ball gets there?

Sorry for the double post, but just read throug the original question again. Even in that 5 yard "Bump" area, a Defensive Back / Linebacker cannot hit or bump a receiver / RB if the ball has been thrown. The Bump is just a way to hold a receiver up on the line, but the Pass Interference rule is in effect anytime a DB is covering a WR / RB.

The 5 yard Bump Zone was put in the rules to even up the game more. In the Old days (50's - early 70's), a DB could bump a WR all over the field until the ball was thrown. Defensive coaches would tell the LB's and Safetys, if you see a guy cutting to the middle, unload on him. Got pretty dangerous running routes inside. The rule was changed in the late 70's to say that you couldn't bump a WR/RB after he's gone 5 yards past the line of scrimmage. Just have to make sure if you're a DB/LB that you don't bump him even then if the ball is in the air.

[Sea Bass]

Why isnt spiking the ball to stop the clock intentional grounding? He is inside the pocket?

I always wondered the same thing

[bhusc2002]

Why isnt spiking the ball to stop the clock intentional grounding? He is inside the pocket?
my take on this is that when a qb spikes the ball, they usually have a rb near them. a rb is an eligible receiver, so it is in the area of an eligible receiver. could be wrong, but that is my take on it.

this is also a good possibility, posted earlier by spurticus.
I remember when this rule was put in place. This was just a special rule that was written in to allow a team to stop the clock safely. It got to where when a player wanted to stop the clock late in the game, they'd have to send a receiver downfield, and the QB would throw it in his general direction (way over his head) to stop the clock. But the guys on defense would "Tee Off" on a Quarterback to try to prevent it, or try to stop it, so they just said "Spike it" and we'll give you the time out. .............. Not saying it was the right thing to do, but we don't always agree with the rules. I think safety has gotten to out of hand in football myself, but that's the rules.

[rock23aj]

How about this one... If your knee is down in college tle player is down, correct. What about the holder holding for extra points and field goals? Is his knee not down as well?

[Spurticus]

Yes it is, but again the Knee Down in college is a rule of safety, and was written in to protect players (this one however needs to be re-witten in my opinion). It was written in for plays in the open field and excluded the field goal holder. In fact, special rules applied to them in that you can't "Tee Off" on the Kicker or Field Goal Holder as long as they remain in their position at snap, or are in the motion of Kicking the football. But if either of these players vary from that position, it's open season on them.
So if the holder fumbles the ball, or turns like he is going to lateral or "looks like" he's about to get up and run, OR even if he has to move out of that position to recover a bad snap / fumbled snap, he can be steamrolled. But too, say he comes out of his crouch to recover a bad snap, or is going to try to run the ball (after a fake kick), now if his knee touches down again, he his down at that point.

[Spur]

If a player runs into a ref while a play occurs and it stops him from getting a 1st down....does anything happen at all?

[Spurticus]

If a player runs into a ref while a play occurs and it stops him from getting a 1st down....does anything happen at all?

Rules say that an Official is considered part of the field, and if a passed ball hits him, and falls incomplete, or if a player trips over an offical during play, it is the same as if he'd slipped on the bare ground (or a pass hitting a goal post etc..) the ball is incomplete, or the player is down. The player could get up and run in the NFL unless an opposing player touched him after falling, but in College, if his knee hits the ground after tripping over, or making contact with an official, he is down at that point.

[cack]

/\ yep just like in Basketball ... if a loose ball hits a ref ... it's still game ... if the ref/ump is in the field of play ... he's fair game ... there's be numerous times when someone has caught a ball and used the refs as a "blocker"

[SpuR48]

Eh, once again, the search ain't working so well for me ... so I'm not sure if this has been posted.

I have a question regarding some rules of the game ... Some of these I know I should know seeing as how I played an OL in high school, but since I wasn't very good I think I may have put too much attention into the cheerleaders :)


...anyways... What in the world can be called "illegal motion" ? I think we got that called on us more than once during the UGA game last year in Athens. It seems like you can call illegal motion for the WR wigglying his big toe 3.4 seconds before the snap of the ball ... seems like one of those WHY? calls to me

When is/isn't clipping legal? From what I was taught, clipping is when you take someone out from below the knees. Now, I've seen this done many times but never got called, are there special circumstances that have to be inacted here?


I know I could just look these up, but I thought this might make for some good conversation :)

[SpuR48]

What in the world can be called "illegal motion"



Or maybe it was "Illegal Procedure" either way, I dun get it ... :football:

[Spurticus]

The Motion Penalty can be several different things. Basically, You can only have 1 man in motion before the ball is snapped, and that man can not be in motion towards the line of scrimmage (has to be moving laterally or backwards to the LOS). Once he goes in motion, he has to stay in motion until the ball is snapped, OR if he sets up again, he has to be stopped and in a set position a full second before the ball is snapped. There's not much difference between Illegal Proceedure, and Motion (used to be called, Backfield in motion). The slight difference being that "Motion" is called when one of the elligable players to go in motion doesn't follow the rules above.

The Motion penalties we got (seemed like all season long), and especially in the UGA game was that we sent a player in motion (Think it was Bobby Wallace . . not sure) but he was supposed to motion out to his left, and set up again in the slot as an extra receiver. This was to force the Free safety who was back off the line to move over to cover the slot back. In the particular defense they were playing at that time, it left man to man coverage on Sidney Rice, and the play worked to perfection. Sidney beat the man coverage and caught the ball for the touchdown, but unfortunately, the motion man who set up in the slot, moved his right foot back a split second befor the ball was snapped, and that was what the officials called illegal motion. The slot man had squared to the line and set up again in plenty of time before the snap, but dropped his back foot a little.
Most officials overlook that with motion guys, but it didn't happen this time. It was called, and it cost us the UGA game. Not blasting the official, because it was a legit call by the rules, and players have to be smart enough to know that when you're playing in the opponents house, these nit picking calls will probably fall in favor of the home team, but 90% of the time, that would not have been called by an official.

The rule you're refering to about hitting someone below the knees is called a "Chop" block. When done in tandum with another player, it's called a "Crackback" block and is HIGHLY Illegal. If it's done purposely in the eyes of the official, a player can be ejected and suspended.

A Clip is simply a block in the back (above or below the waist). Commonly called on Kick / Punt returns. Can be called on long plays from scrimmage, when a player is blocking for the ball carrier. Clipping is legal ONLY by offensive linemen (and TE's) against the defensive front, and within two yards either side of the line of scrimmage. This because most defensive linemen while rushing, will often spin or turn to avoid the blocks, and to try to get around the offensive lineman. So the rule is, as long as an Offensive lineman is within two yards of the LOS, if the defensive lineman turns or spins, he can be blocked in the back.

Hope that clears it up a little for you.

[SpuR48]

Oh ok, chopping is what I meant to say ... it seems like I've seen that alot though, and it never gets called. I commonly see it when the FB or TB tries to cut off the blitz by hitting him at the feet. It's not in tandum though, just a desparate attempt to save his QB ...

Thanks, that did clear some stuff up :)

[SpuR48]

Oh, I didn't post this earlier, but if we don't already have a thread for this kind of thing, everyone else should feel free to post their questions. Don't be shy, I know I'm not the only one who doesn't know every rule in the book.

[SpuR48]

/\ Thanks for moving my posts spurt (i guess it was you) I tried to edit my above post but couldn't, can you delete it?

I got another question/comment.

What do you guys think of the over time rules? Do you like them better in college or in pro?

Personally, I like the pro way better, but that is just me. :)

[willy]

I got this Idea about a help thread, and I'm going to give this a shot and see how it goes over. If this works out, we can try puting one of these in The Sarge (for Baseball), and Fowl Shots (for Basketball).

This thread will be for anyone who has a question about the rules of Football, or just a general question about the game (terminology, origins etc...) We have gotten a few new female members lately, and we have some on the board already, that have stated they wish they knew more about the sport of football, but loved the Gamecocks anyway. CarolinaNurse said she attended Spurrier's Womens Clinic last spring to learn more about football too. So I'm thinking we can help them out here, as well as a lot of us guys who know the game, but still aren't quite sure about this rule, or that term.

Anyone can ask any question they'd like, and between all the members of


the board, I'm sure we can come up with the rule, definition, or reason. Don't be shy, ask anything you'd like to know. THERE ARE NO RIDICULOUS QUESTIONS.

I think that is an extremely good idea Spurticus.

:swingcoc::swingcoc::swingcoc::swingcoc::swingcoc: :swingcoc::swingcoc::swingcoc::swingcoc:

[Spurticus]

I think that is an extremely good idea Spurticus.

:swingcoc::swingcoc::swingcoc::swingcoc::swingcoc: :swingcoc::swingcoc::swingcoc::swingcoc:

Thanks Willy. I started it a while back. We had a couple of ladies who spent a lot of time on the board without posting, and said that they didn't really know much about the game, but loved coming on CockyTalk and finding out a little here and there from the posts. They said they didn't like posting much because they would be embarrased because the didn't know anything about football. We had some guys to tell them not to be shy about posting, because they didn't know a whole lot about the game, but just came here to have fun. So I thought it'd be nice to have a thread so anyone could ask questions about the game of football.

[Spurticus]

/\ Thanks for moving my posts spurt (i guess it was you) I tried to edit my above post but couldn't, can you delete it?

I got another question/comment.

What do you guys think of the over time rules? Do you like them better in college or in pro?

Personally, I like the pro way better, but that is just me. :)

My opinion is (like you), I wish it were a Sudden Death type OT like they use in the pros. The 25yard line thing for both teams is exciting, but Red Zone Offenses, and short Yardage Defenses are kind of dull when both the teams have beat up on each other for 60 minutes, and their tanks are almost out of gas. Especially if they have to go two or Three series each before the outcome has been decided. I say flip a coin for who goes first, and then the first team that scores wins.

[carolinanurse]

Great idea Spur! I'm going back to the ladies clinic next month so
I probably will have more questions about the rules.

I appreciate having a football question from a girl answered without
sarcasm or a pat on the head.

[gotrice?]

My opinion is (like you), I wish it were a Sudden Death type OT like they use in the pros. The 25yard line thing for both teams is exciting, but Red Zone Offenses, and short Yardage Defenses are kind of dull when both the teams have beat up on each other for 60 minutes, and their tanks are almost out of gas. Especially if they have to go two or Three series each before the outcome has been decided. I say flip a coin for who goes first, and then the first team that scores wins.

I just don't like having the game possibly decided on a coin flip. Lets see who has more left in the tank because at least that has something to do with coaching and not luck.

[SpuR48]

Or maybe even perhaps just add 5 minutes to the clock?

The team that manages the clock better, and plays better, will win :)

[Spurticus]

Great idea Spur! I'm going back to the ladies clinic next month so
I probably will have more questions about the rules.

I appreciate having a football question from a girl answered without
sarcasm or a pat on the head.

Hey nurse!! Haven't seen you on in a while. Welcome back!

[Spurred4Life]

college is way better, I suck at odds but am better conditioned.

[usurper]

ok i got one...

since i am a special teams kind of guy... here is one some probably dont know about. The "Fair Catch/ Free Kick Rule"

say its 2 seconds in the game Georgia is up by one pt... USC has Georgia on its own 1 yard line, it is Forth Down... All Georgia needs to do is not get the punt blocked and kick it out of the endzone and make the tackle on the USC returnman and the game is over right? here is the rule, If i player fair catches any punt or kickoff his team then has the option to tee the ball up and attempt a kick through the uprights (big point here, With NO RUSH at all, just the kicker and the ball) that will be worth 3 points if made... so say the punter nails one 50 yards... fair caught on the 50, the kicker runs out with his kickoff tee, or his holder, his choice to attempt a 50 yd. FG to win the game with NO TIME ON THE CLOCK, sounds crazy but it was done in a NFL scrimmage not too long ago, we used to practice it, but never got to do it... crazy huh?

[cack]

ok i got one...

since i am a special teams kind of guy... here is one some probably dont know about. The "Fair Catch/ Free Kick Rule"

say its 2 seconds in the game Georgia is up by one pt... USC has Georgia on its own 1 yard line, it is Forth Down... All Georgia needs to do is not get the punt blocked and kick it out of the endzone and make the tackle on the USC returnman and the game is over right? here is the rule, If i player fair catches any punt or kickoff his team then has the option to tee the ball up and attempt a kick through the uprights (big point here, With NO RUSH at all, just the kicker and the ball) that will be worth 3 points if made... so say the punter nails one 50 yards... fair caught on the 50, the kicker runs out with his kickoff tee, or his holder, his choice to attempt a 50 yd. FG to win the game with NO TIME ON THE CLOCK, sounds crazy but it was done in a NFL scrimmage not too long ago, we used to practice it, but never got to do it... crazy huh?

ok so that one is DEF. wild ... good one there ... maybe Succop could help out here ... or that new punter we have ... what's his name ... something like Spencer Lanning :thumbsup: