Neutral Zone Infraction (3 Viewers)

[DropKick]

Forgive me if this was posted... I didn't see anything.

I thought the Hobbs PI call was horrible. He didn't turn around (a frequent mantra) but without contact... I just don't get it.

But another call that struck me as funny was the neutral zone infraction on Seymour. I know that if an offensive player moves (flinches, etc) and it was basically a reaction to a defensive player, they call the penalty on the defense. At least, that is the general intent of the rule.

I thought Seymour jumped into the neutral zone, and got back onsides. Then after some pause, the offensive linemen jumped up and pointed at Seymour. I thought the delay was far too long to be a "reaction to Seymor" and obviously intentional. Penalty on the D?

Looking for subjective opinions on the play and how it should be called not a homer peeing contest.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Forgive me if this was posted... I didn't see anything.I thought the Hobbs PI call was horrible. He didn't turn around (a frequent mantra) but without contact... I just don't get it.But another call that struck me as funny was the neutral zone infraction on Seymour. I know that if an offensive player moves (flinches, etc) and it was basically a reaction to a defensive player, they call the penalty on the defense. At least, that is the general intent of the rule.I thought Seymour jumped into the neutral zone, and got back onsides. Then after some pause, the offensive linemen jumped up and pointed at Seymour. I thought the delay was far too long to be a "reaction to Seymor" and obviously intentional. Penalty on the D?Looking for subjective opinions on the play and how it should be called not a homer peeing contest.

This was actually partially discussed in some of the other threads about the game.The rule was put in place to protect offensive linemen. What was happening too often was that if a defensive lineman jumped offsides, the offensive lineman was expected to still not move even if he got DRILLED by the DLineman. And if he jumped up to protect himself, the false start would go on the OLineman.They changed the rule to read that if the defensive lineman entered the neutral zone so as to draw the OLineman across from him offsides, the penalty would be on the defense.DLinemen are allowed to jump offsides and get back as long as the they dont touch an offensive player or the center doesnt snap the ball while they are still in the neutral zone.The rule wasnt put in place so that an OLineman on the other side of the center can jump up and point at the defender ( as if the referee or linesman doesnt know the defender is in the neutral zone at the time).This was a very big play in the game among others and should in no way have been a penalty on Seymour. Later in the game Jarvis Green of the Pats jumps into the neutral zone and Tarik Glenn reacts and hits him. This was called correctly as a penalty against the defense.

 

[David Yudkin]

Forgive me if this was posted... I didn't see anything.

I thought the Hobbs PI call was horrible. He didn't turn around (a frequent mantra) but without contact... I just don't get it.

But another call that struck me as funny was the neutral zone infraction on Seymour. I know that if an offensive player moves (flinches, etc) and it was basically a reaction to a defensive player, they call the penalty on the defense. At least, that is the general intent of the rule.

I thought Seymour jumped into the neutral zone, and got back onsides. Then after some pause, the offensive linemen jumped up and pointed at Seymour. I thought the delay was far too long to be a "reaction to Seymor" and obviously intentional. Penalty on the D?

Looking for subjective opinions on the play and how it should be called not a homer peeing contest.

This was actually partially discussed in some of the other threads about the game.The rule was put in place to protect offensive linemen. What was happening too often was that if a defensive lineman jumped offsides, the offensive lineman was expected to still not move even if he got DRILLED by the DLineman. And if he jumped up to protect himself, the false start would go on the OLineman.

They changed the rule to read that if the defensive lineman entered the neutral zone so as to draw the OLineman across from him offsides, the penalty would be on the defense.

DLinemen are allowed to jump offsides and get back as long as the they dont touch an offensive player or the center doesnt snap the ball while they are still in the neutral zone.

The rule wasnt put in place so that an OLineman on the other side of the center can jump up and point at the defender ( as if the referee or linesman doesnt know the defender is in the neutral zone at the time).

This was a very big play in the game among others and should in no way have been a penalty on Seymour. Later in the game Jarvis Green of the Pats jumps into the neutral zone and Tarik Glenn reacts and hits him. This was called correctly as a penalty against the defense.

I still am not convinced this WASN'T a penalty on Seymour. Here's a blurb in another one of those ask the referee columns . . .

Q: Would you please explain to me what exactly is the difference between offsides, encroachment and a neutral zone infraction? I don't think they are interchangeable terms, but the referee uses the same signal for all three calls. --Jeff Jhee, Chicago

Former NFL referee Jerry Markbreit: A player is offside when any part of his body is beyond his line of scrimmage or free kick line when the ball is put in play. Encroachment is when a defensive player enters the neutral zone with any part of his body and makes contact with an opponent prior to the ball being snapped. This play is killed immediately. A neutral zone infraction occurs whenever a defender enters the neutral zone, causing the offensive player in close proximity to react immediately (move). This play is shut down immediately, and no snap is allowed to occur. All three of these fouls carry a five-yard penalty and a replay of the down.

LINKHerein lies the problem. What is "close proximity" and what does "react immediately" mean? Apparently in the judgment of the official, even being on the other side of the line was deemed as being in close proximity and standing and pointing was considered immediate movement.

 

[Tau837]

Forgive me if this was posted... I didn't see anything.

I thought the Hobbs PI call was horrible. He didn't turn around (a frequent mantra) but without contact... I just don't get it.

But another call that struck me as funny was the neutral zone infraction on Seymour. I know that if an offensive player moves (flinches, etc) and it was basically a reaction to a defensive player, they call the penalty on the defense. At least, that is the general intent of the rule.

I thought Seymour jumped into the neutral zone, and got back onsides. Then after some pause, the offensive linemen jumped up and pointed at Seymour. I thought the delay was far too long to be a "reaction to Seymor" and obviously intentional. Penalty on the D?

Looking for subjective opinions on the play and how it should be called not a homer peeing contest.

This was actually partially discussed in some of the other threads about the game.The rule was put in place to protect offensive linemen. What was happening too often was that if a defensive lineman jumped offsides, the offensive lineman was expected to still not move even if he got DRILLED by the DLineman. And if he jumped up to protect himself, the false start would go on the OLineman.

They changed the rule to read that if the defensive lineman entered the neutral zone so as to draw the OLineman across from him offsides, the penalty would be on the defense.

DLinemen are allowed to jump offsides and get back as long as the they dont touch an offensive player or the center doesnt snap the ball while they are still in the neutral zone.

The rule wasnt put in place so that an OLineman on the other side of the center can jump up and point at the defender ( as if the referee or linesman doesnt know the defender is in the neutral zone at the time).

This was a very big play in the game among others and should in no way have been a penalty on Seymour. Later in the game Jarvis Green of the Pats jumps into the neutral zone and Tarik Glenn reacts and hits him. This was called correctly as a penalty against the defense.

I think the bolded stuff in your post is your own opinion/speculation. From NFL Digest of Rules:

No player of offensive team may charge or move abruptly, after assuming set position, in such manner as to lead defense to believe snap has started. No player of the defensive team within one yard of the line of scrimmage may make an abrupt movement in an attempt to cause the offense to false start.

The way I read this, it has nothing to do with which offensive player false starts. As for whether or not Seymour got back onsides before the false start, I haven't seen a replay, so I'm not sure. I didn't think so when I watched it live, but I may have missed it.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Forgive me if this was posted... I didn't see anything.

I thought the Hobbs PI call was horrible. He didn't turn around (a frequent mantra) but without contact... I just don't get it.

But another call that struck me as funny was the neutral zone infraction on Seymour. I know that if an offensive player moves (flinches, etc) and it was basically a reaction to a defensive player, they call the penalty on the defense. At least, that is the general intent of the rule.

I thought Seymour jumped into the neutral zone, and got back onsides. Then after some pause, the offensive linemen jumped up and pointed at Seymour. I thought the delay was far too long to be a "reaction to Seymor" and obviously intentional. Penalty on the D?

Looking for subjective opinions on the play and how it should be called not a homer peeing contest.

This was actually partially discussed in some of the other threads about the game.The rule was put in place to protect offensive linemen. What was happening too often was that if a defensive lineman jumped offsides, the offensive lineman was expected to still not move even if he got DRILLED by the DLineman. And if he jumped up to protect himself, the false start would go on the OLineman.

They changed the rule to read that if the defensive lineman entered the neutral zone so as to draw the OLineman across from him offsides, the penalty would be on the defense.

DLinemen are allowed to jump offsides and get back as long as the they dont touch an offensive player or the center doesnt snap the ball while they are still in the neutral zone.

The rule wasnt put in place so that an OLineman on the other side of the center can jump up and point at the defender ( as if the referee or linesman doesnt know the defender is in the neutral zone at the time).

This was a very big play in the game among others and should in no way have been a penalty on Seymour. Later in the game Jarvis Green of the Pats jumps into the neutral zone and Tarik Glenn reacts and hits him. This was called correctly as a penalty against the defense.

I still am not convinced this WASN'T a penalty on Seymour. Here's a blurb in another one of those ask the referee columns . . .

Q: Would you please explain to me what exactly is the difference between offsides, encroachment and a neutral zone infraction? I don't think they are interchangeable terms, but the referee uses the same signal for all three calls. --Jeff Jhee, Chicago

Former NFL referee Jerry Markbreit: A player is offside when any part of his body is beyond his line of scrimmage or free kick line when the ball is put in play. Encroachment is when a defensive player enters the neutral zone with any part of his body and makes contact with an opponent prior to the ball being snapped. This play is killed immediately. A neutral zone infraction occurs whenever a defender enters the neutral zone, causing the offensive player in close proximity to react immediately (move). This play is shut down immediately, and no snap is allowed to occur. All three of these fouls carry a five-yard penalty and a replay of the down.

LINKHerein lies the problem. What is "close proximity" and what does "react immediately" mean? Apparently in the judgment of the official, even being on the other side of the line was deemed as being in close proximity and standing and pointing was considered immediate movement.

This infraction fails the litmus test on both accounts for me. The RG was neither in close proximity nor did he react with immediate movement.If not the letter of the law then calling this penalty on Seymour at least was against the spirit of the rule. The rule was put in to allow offensive linemen to react instinctually to protect themselves rather than letting the DLineman cream them when they jumped offsides.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Forgive me if this was posted... I didn't see anything.

I thought the Hobbs PI call was horrible. He didn't turn around (a frequent mantra) but without contact... I just don't get it.

But another call that struck me as funny was the neutral zone infraction on Seymour. I know that if an offensive player moves (flinches, etc) and it was basically a reaction to a defensive player, they call the penalty on the defense. At least, that is the general intent of the rule.

I thought Seymour jumped into the neutral zone, and got back onsides. Then after some pause, the offensive linemen jumped up and pointed at Seymour. I thought the delay was far too long to be a "reaction to Seymor" and obviously intentional. Penalty on the D?

Looking for subjective opinions on the play and how it should be called not a homer peeing contest.

This was actually partially discussed in some of the other threads about the game.The rule was put in place to protect offensive linemen. What was happening too often was that if a defensive lineman jumped offsides, the offensive lineman was expected to still not move even if he got DRILLED by the DLineman. And if he jumped up to protect himself, the false start would go on the OLineman.

They changed the rule to read that if the defensive lineman entered the neutral zone so as to draw the OLineman across from him offsides, the penalty would be on the defense.

DLinemen are allowed to jump offsides and get back as long as the they dont touch an offensive player or the center doesnt snap the ball while they are still in the neutral zone.

The rule wasnt put in place so that an OLineman on the other side of the center can jump up and point at the defender ( as if the referee or linesman doesnt know the defender is in the neutral zone at the time).

This was a very big play in the game among others and should in no way have been a penalty on Seymour. Later in the game Jarvis Green of the Pats jumps into the neutral zone and Tarik Glenn reacts and hits him. This was called correctly as a penalty against the defense.

I think the bolded stuff in your post is your own opinion/speculation. From NFL Digest of Rules:

No player of offensive team may charge or move abruptly, after assuming set position, in such manner as to lead defense to believe snap has started. No player of the defensive team within one yard of the line of scrimmage may make an abrupt movement in an attempt to cause the offense to false start.

The way I read this, it has nothing to do with which offensive player false starts. As for whether or not Seymour got back onsides before the false start, I haven't seen a replay, so I'm not sure. I didn't think so when I watched it live, but I may have missed it.

I think you are reaching. Could Seymour's actions really be construed as an attempt to cause the offense to false start? The RG false started of his own volition.

 

[Tau837]

Forgive me if this was posted... I didn't see anything.

I thought the Hobbs PI call was horrible. He didn't turn around (a frequent mantra) but without contact... I just don't get it.

But another call that struck me as funny was the neutral zone infraction on Seymour. I know that if an offensive player moves (flinches, etc) and it was basically a reaction to a defensive player, they call the penalty on the defense. At least, that is the general intent of the rule.

I thought Seymour jumped into the neutral zone, and got back onsides. Then after some pause, the offensive linemen jumped up and pointed at Seymour. I thought the delay was far too long to be a "reaction to Seymor" and obviously intentional. Penalty on the D?

Looking for subjective opinions on the play and how it should be called not a homer peeing contest.

This was actually partially discussed in some of the other threads about the game.The rule was put in place to protect offensive linemen. What was happening too often was that if a defensive lineman jumped offsides, the offensive lineman was expected to still not move even if he got DRILLED by the DLineman. And if he jumped up to protect himself, the false start would go on the OLineman.

They changed the rule to read that if the defensive lineman entered the neutral zone so as to draw the OLineman across from him offsides, the penalty would be on the defense.

DLinemen are allowed to jump offsides and get back as long as the they dont touch an offensive player or the center doesnt snap the ball while they are still in the neutral zone.

The rule wasnt put in place so that an OLineman on the other side of the center can jump up and point at the defender ( as if the referee or linesman doesnt know the defender is in the neutral zone at the time).

This was a very big play in the game among others and should in no way have been a penalty on Seymour. Later in the game Jarvis Green of the Pats jumps into the neutral zone and Tarik Glenn reacts and hits him. This was called correctly as a penalty against the defense.

I think the bolded stuff in your post is your own opinion/speculation. From NFL Digest of Rules:

No player of offensive team may charge or move abruptly, after assuming set position, in such manner as to lead defense to believe snap has started. No player of the defensive team within one yard of the line of scrimmage may make an abrupt movement in an attempt to cause the offense to false start.

The way I read this, it has nothing to do with which offensive player false starts. As for whether or not Seymour got back onsides before the false start, I haven't seen a replay, so I'm not sure. I didn't think so when I watched it live, but I may have missed it.

I think you are reaching. Could Seymour's actions really be construed as an attempt to cause the offense to false start? The RG false started of his own volition.

How can I be reaching when it was called? It's a judgment call. By the nature of "judgment", it is possible that different people will disagree as to the decision.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Forgive me if this was posted... I didn't see anything.

I thought the Hobbs PI call was horrible. He didn't turn around (a frequent mantra) but without contact... I just don't get it.

But another call that struck me as funny was the neutral zone infraction on Seymour. I know that if an offensive player moves (flinches, etc) and it was basically a reaction to a defensive player, they call the penalty on the defense. At least, that is the general intent of the rule.

I thought Seymour jumped into the neutral zone, and got back onsides. Then after some pause, the offensive linemen jumped up and pointed at Seymour. I thought the delay was far too long to be a "reaction to Seymor" and obviously intentional. Penalty on the D?

Looking for subjective opinions on the play and how it should be called not a homer peeing contest.

This was actually partially discussed in some of the other threads about the game.The rule was put in place to protect offensive linemen. What was happening too often was that if a defensive lineman jumped offsides, the offensive lineman was expected to still not move even if he got DRILLED by the DLineman. And if he jumped up to protect himself, the false start would go on the OLineman.

They changed the rule to read that if the defensive lineman entered the neutral zone so as to draw the OLineman across from him offsides, the penalty would be on the defense.

DLinemen are allowed to jump offsides and get back as long as the they dont touch an offensive player or the center doesnt snap the ball while they are still in the neutral zone.

The rule wasnt put in place so that an OLineman on the other side of the center can jump up and point at the defender ( as if the referee or linesman doesnt know the defender is in the neutral zone at the time).

This was a very big play in the game among others and should in no way have been a penalty on Seymour. Later in the game Jarvis Green of the Pats jumps into the neutral zone and Tarik Glenn reacts and hits him. This was called correctly as a penalty against the defense.

I think the bolded stuff in your post is your own opinion/speculation. From NFL Digest of Rules:

No player of offensive team may charge or move abruptly, after assuming set position, in such manner as to lead defense to believe snap has started. No player of the defensive team within one yard of the line of scrimmage may make an abrupt movement in an attempt to cause the offense to false start.

The way I read this, it has nothing to do with which offensive player false starts. As for whether or not Seymour got back onsides before the false start, I haven't seen a replay, so I'm not sure. I didn't think so when I watched it live, but I may have missed it.

I think you are reaching. Could Seymour's actions really be construed as an attempt to cause the offense to false start? The RG false started of his own volition.

How can I be reaching when it was called? It's a judgment call. By the nature of "judgment", it is possible that different people will disagree as to the decision.

I dont believe this call is a judgement call at all. The referee called this infraction incorrectly based on both the intention of the rule and the rule as written. I think it is quite clear.The actions of the Right Guard are quite obvious. He wasnt influenced by Seymour entering the Neutral Zone 2 men down, he stood up and pointed at Seymour. That is a false start that is not induced by the defense IMO.

 

[David Yudkin]

I dont believe this call is a judgement call at all. The referee called this infraction incorrectly based on both the intention of the rule and the rule as written. I think it is quite clear.

The actions of the Right Guard are quite obvious. He wasnt influenced by Seymour entering the Neutral Zone 2 men down, he stood up and pointed at Seymour. That is a false start that is not induced by the defense IMO.

Therein lies the issue. In the ref's opinion, it WAS a penalty. In your opinion, it wasn't. It seems to me like many (most?) of the rules, there's a lot of wiggle room, interpretation, and judgment involved.

 

[Tau837]

Forgive me if this was posted... I didn't see anything.

I thought the Hobbs PI call was horrible. He didn't turn around (a frequent mantra) but without contact... I just don't get it.

But another call that struck me as funny was the neutral zone infraction on Seymour. I know that if an offensive player moves (flinches, etc) and it was basically a reaction to a defensive player, they call the penalty on the defense. At least, that is the general intent of the rule.

I thought Seymour jumped into the neutral zone, and got back onsides. Then after some pause, the offensive linemen jumped up and pointed at Seymour. I thought the delay was far too long to be a "reaction to Seymor" and obviously intentional. Penalty on the D?

Looking for subjective opinions on the play and how it should be called not a homer peeing contest.

This was actually partially discussed in some of the other threads about the game.The rule was put in place to protect offensive linemen. What was happening too often was that if a defensive lineman jumped offsides, the offensive lineman was expected to still not move even if he got DRILLED by the DLineman. And if he jumped up to protect himself, the false start would go on the OLineman.

They changed the rule to read that if the defensive lineman entered the neutral zone so as to draw the OLineman across from him offsides, the penalty would be on the defense.

DLinemen are allowed to jump offsides and get back as long as the they dont touch an offensive player or the center doesnt snap the ball while they are still in the neutral zone.

The rule wasnt put in place so that an OLineman on the other side of the center can jump up and point at the defender ( as if the referee or linesman doesnt know the defender is in the neutral zone at the time).

This was a very big play in the game among others and should in no way have been a penalty on Seymour. Later in the game Jarvis Green of the Pats jumps into the neutral zone and Tarik Glenn reacts and hits him. This was called correctly as a penalty against the defense.

I think the bolded stuff in your post is your own opinion/speculation. From NFL Digest of Rules:

No player of offensive team may charge or move abruptly, after assuming set position, in such manner as to lead defense to believe snap has started. No player of the defensive team within one yard of the line of scrimmage may make an abrupt movement in an attempt to cause the offense to false start.

The way I read this, it has nothing to do with which offensive player false starts. As for whether or not Seymour got back onsides before the false start, I haven't seen a replay, so I'm not sure. I didn't think so when I watched it live, but I may have missed it.

I think you are reaching. Could Seymour's actions really be construed as an attempt to cause the offense to false start? The RG false started of his own volition.

How can I be reaching when it was called? It's a judgment call. By the nature of "judgment", it is possible that different people will disagree as to the decision.

I dont believe this call is a judgement call at all. The referee called this infraction incorrectly based on both the intention of the rule and the rule as written. I think it is quite clear.The actions of the Right Guard are quite obvious. He wasnt influenced by Seymour entering the Neutral Zone 2 men down, he stood up and pointed at Seymour. That is a false start that is not induced by the defense IMO.

I don't see how you can say that "in an attempt to cause the offense to false start" is not a judgment call. To me, that means the referee must judge the intent of the defensive player.Looking at the rule I quoted, did Seymour make an abrupt movement? Yes. So the only thing left to determine is whether or not he did so to induce a false start. Yep, that's a judgment call alright.

So essentially you are merely disagreeing with the judgment of the referee. As I said, that will happen often enough on judgment calls.

As to the intent of the rule, that doesn't really matter. The rule matters. If it was important to qualify the rule based on certain factors that form the intent to which you refer, the written rule would include those qualifiers. If they are not included, then they are not necessarily to be taken into account on the field... this would be a matter of interpretation (i.e., how the referee interprets that the written rule should be applied on the field).

 

[roarlions]

I hate this rule. If the true intent was to protect offensive linemen who were getting creamed by defenders jumping offsides, it would be better to penalize the defender with some kind of personal foul if they creamed the OLr who is vulnerable, like they do when WRs who don't make a catch are creamed by a DB.

A defender should be allowed to enter the neutral zone and then get back onsides before the snap without being penalized and the OL should have to remain set. If the defender crosses the neutral zone and touches the OL, the defender is offsides. Simple as that. The OL knows the snap count and has no excuse for moving before the snap, regardless of what the defense is doing.

 

[matt jones]

Don't jump and you don't have to worry about it!

 

[GregR_2]

I hate this rule. If the true intent was to protect offensive linemen who were getting creamed by defenders jumping offsides, it would be better to penalize the defender with some kind of personal foul if they creamed the OLr who is vulnerable, like they do when WRs who don't make a catch are creamed by a DB.A defender should be allowed to enter the neutral zone and then get back onsides before the snap without being penalized and the OL should have to remain set. If the defender crosses the neutral zone and touches the OL, the defender is offsides. Simple as that. The OL knows the snap count and has no excuse for moving before the snap, regardless of what the defense is doing.

I think you sort of answered your own question. If protecting O-linemen was their intent they'd have made it a penalty to hit an O-linemen, not make it a penalty to make them move.Therefore, that probably was not their intent.I would imagine the intent was to stop exactly what the rule stops... a D-lineman instigating a false start by rushing across the line early, whether he stops short of hitting him or not.

 

[Doug Drinen]

These threads have been very interesting.

I thought the Hobbs PI was a proper call of a bad rule. Now I've learned that it was just a bad call, and the rule is not as bad as I thought.

I thought the Seymour encroachment was a bad call (of a good rule). Now I believe it's a bad rule (too much dependence on inferring intent), but that the call may have actually been a correct enforcement of that bad rule.

 

[Bevo]

I hate this rule. If the true intent was to protect offensive linemen who were getting creamed by defenders jumping offsides, it would be better to penalize the defender with some kind of personal foul if they creamed the OLr who is vulnerable, like they do when WRs who don't make a catch are creamed by a DB.

A defender should be allowed to enter the neutral zone and then get back onsides before the snap without being penalized and the OL should have to remain set. If the defender crosses the neutral zone and touches the OL, the defender is offsides. Simple as that. The OL knows the snap count and has no excuse for moving before the snap, regardless of what the defense is doing.

Just curious, why do you think that? Seems to me that the whole situation could be more easily and correctly called if the rule specified that no one (offense or defense) should be allowed in the neutral zone prior to the snap. I've never quite understood why the defense is given this particular advantage.

 

[redman]

This is another of those rules that's a pet peeve of mine because of how imprecisely it's defined. Relying upon the intent of the defensive player to draw the offensive player in a false start? How do you determine that intent, as opposed to someone simply anticipating the snap count?

The bottom line solution here IMHO is:

1) offensive players simply cannot move unless there's contact; and

2) there are two types of defensive encroachment penalties, the standard 5-yarder, and a 10-yarder for egregious amounts of contact on an offensive player who has maintained his stance. Where there's an apparently cheap shot on an offensive player in his stance, you also hold open the possibility of a personal foul for unnecessary roughness.

You also keep the "unabated to the QB" rule.

I think that that solves the problem.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Just curious, why do you think that? Seems to me that the whole situation could be more easily and correctly called if the rule specified that no one (offense or defense) should be allowed in the neutral zone prior to the snap. I've never quite understood why the defense is given this particular advantage.

I've always wondered that too.

 

[roarlions]

It would be perfectly fine with me if the defense was not allowed to enter the neutral zone at all. I was just thinking back to the way it used to be handled before the most recent rule change. Given 2 choices, the current rule and the previous rule, I prefer the previous rule. I'm not sure why the defense was ever given the latitude to enter/cross the neutral zone without penalty as long as they were back on their side before the snap.

 

[Bevo]

It would be perfectly fine with me if the defense was not allowed to enter the neutral zone at all. I was just thinking back to the way it used to be handled before the most recent rule change. Given 2 choices, the current rule and the previous rule, I prefer the previous rule. I'm not sure why the defense was ever given the latitude to enter/cross the neutral zone without penalty as long as they were back on their side before the snap.

Gotcha

 

[GregR_2]

Just curious, why do you think that? Seems to me that the whole situation could be more easily and correctly called if the rule specified that no one (offense or defense) should be allowed in the neutral zone prior to the snap. I've never quite understood why the defense is given this particular advantage.

I've always wondered that too.

Both offense and defense can return to their side without getting flagged for offsides. The difference is that the offense can't move towards the line without it being a false start. So the only time they can take advantage of this rule is if they lined up offsides to start with and didn't get set.Take a WR who lines up offsides. When he points down to the ref who is watching the line and gets back the indication he is offsides, he can back up without it being a penalty, same as the defense can, right?

 

[redman]

Just curious, why do you think that? Seems to me that the whole situation could be more easily and correctly called if the rule specified that no one (offense or defense) should be allowed in the neutral zone prior to the snap. I've never quite understood why the defense is given this particular advantage.

I've always wondered that too.

Both offense and defense can return to their side without getting flagged for offsides. The difference is that the offense can't move towards the line without it being a false start. So the only time they can take advantage of this rule is if they lined up offsides to start with and didn't get set.Take a WR who lines up offsides. When he points down to the ref who is watching the line and gets back the indication he is offsides, he can back up without it being a penalty, same as the defense can, right?

I don't think you have the bolded part quite right. We've all seen linemen flinch in their stances, up and back, usually to get a better jump in pass protection, and get flagged. Once they're set I believe the rule is that they can't move in a way that simulates the beginning of a play, such as by lifting out of their stance or, as you said, moving forward towards the line.

 

[GregR_2]

Just curious, why do you think that? Seems to me that the whole situation could be more easily and correctly called if the rule specified that no one (offense or defense) should be allowed in the neutral zone prior to the snap. I've never quite understood why the defense is given this particular advantage.

I've always wondered that too.

Both offense and defense can return to their side without getting flagged for offsides. The difference is that the offense can't move towards the line without it being a false start. So the only time they can take advantage of this rule is if they lined up offsides to start with and didn't get set.Take a WR who lines up offsides. When he points down to the ref who is watching the line and gets back the indication he is offsides, he can back up without it being a penalty, same as the defense can, right?

I don't think you have the bolded part quite right. We've all seen linemen flinch in their stances, up and back, usually to get a better jump in pass protection, and get flagged. Once they're set I believe the rule is that they can't move in a way that simulates the beginning of a play, such as by lifting out of their stance or, as you said, moving forward towards the line.

I wasn't trying to state everything that can get you flagged for a false start. It's also true that backing up could get you flagged for illegal motion if someone else is moving at the same time. But, neither of those were the point, which is that there isn't a rule that returning to your side from the neutral zone is an offside penalty for the offense.

 

[Pat Patriot]

I recall when the new rule which would allow a penalty against the defense for causing the offense to false start came into play. I very clearly remember that part of the rule was based on guys like Neil Smith motioning his hand towards the offensive tackle in an obvious attempt to draw a false start. And yes, the entering the neutral zone part is irrelevant when determining this penalty. The defense can be called for attempting to induce a false start without entering the neutral zone.

The other part was to protect and not penalize the offensive lineman that jumps up out of instinct when a defender "enters his space". I thought these were both valid reasons for the rule.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree if you think that it was even a possibility that Seymour went that far into the neutral in an attempt to draw the offense into a penalty. I know with 100% conviction that the RG of the Colts jumped out of his stance simply to try and draw the penalty on Seymour and some idiot linesman fell for it.

Also, it should not be a personal foul on the defense if the DLineman RUNS over the OLineman. These guys are 1.5 yards apart and if the QB uses a hard count or the DLineman simply inticipates the count, he should not receive a personal foul. Once the DLineman enterst he neutral zone, the offensive player across from him should be able to defend themselves. Problem solved.

The RG of the Colts was neither drawn offsides by Seymour nor protecting himself when he came out of his stance.

 

[brettdj]

And the officials have been calling this consistently this season. That must mean that is the way the VP of officiating wants it to be called.

During the offseason things might change, but this is a penalty on the defense at this time. And should be.

In High School the defense entering the neutral zone is a penalty. They don't get a chance to go back.

 

[msommer]

Just curious, why do you think that? Seems to me that the whole situation could be more easily and correctly called if the rule specified that no one (offense or defense) should be allowed in the neutral zone prior to the snap. I've never quite understood why the defense is given this particular advantage.

I've always wondered that too.

Maybe it is because the offense knows when the balls is to be snapped and the defense doesn't, to allow the defense to counter that advantage a bit.

 

[Pat Patriot]

And the officials have been calling this consistently this season. That must mean that is the way the VP of officiating wants it to be called.During the offseason things might change, but this is a penalty on the defense at this time. And should be. In High School the defense entering the neutral zone is a penalty. They don't get a chance to go back.

Please quote me the games in which this infraction has been called the same way as in the Indy/Pats game? I have watched parts of EVERY game this year so, in other words, I have the Ticket and watch lots of football. I have not seen a single time where a DLineman on one side of the center entered the neutral zone and an OLineman from the other side of the center came out of his stance and pointed at him.I dont see where you can claim consistency if it hasnt happened before.

 

[brettdj]

And the officials have been calling this consistently this season. That must mean that is the way the VP of officiating wants it to be called.During the offseason things might change, but this is a penalty on the defense at this time. And should be. In High School the defense entering the neutral zone is a penalty. They don't get a chance to go back.

Please quote me the games in which this infraction has been called the same way as in the Indy/Pats game? I have watched parts of EVERY game this year so, in other words, I have the Ticket and watch lots of football. I have not seen a single time where a DLineman on one side of the center entered the neutral zone and an OLineman from the other side of the center came out of his stance and pointed at him.I dont see where you can claim consistency if it hasnt happened before.

It was mentioned that it happened in the IND/BAL game also.I have not watched many Indy games, but as soons as it happened in this game. I said great move by the OL.

 

[Pat Patriot]

And the officials have been calling this consistently this season. That must mean that is the way the VP of officiating wants it to be called.During the offseason things might change, but this is a penalty on the defense at this time. And should be. In High School the defense entering the neutral zone is a penalty. They don't get a chance to go back.

Please quote me the games in which this infraction has been called the same way as in the Indy/Pats game? I have watched parts of EVERY game this year so, in other words, I have the Ticket and watch lots of football. I have not seen a single time where a DLineman on one side of the center entered the neutral zone and an OLineman from the other side of the center came out of his stance and pointed at him.I dont see where you can claim consistency if it hasnt happened before.

It was mentioned that it happened in the IND/BAL game also.I have not watched many Indy games, but as soons as it happened in this game. I said great move by the OL.

I dont see how you congratulate the Offensive Lineman for the Linesman and Referee making a bad call but to each his own.I think I recall the one in the Indy/Balt game and watching that game, I said they blew the call then as well.

 

[brettdj]

And the officials have been calling this consistently this season. That must mean that is the way the VP of officiating wants it to be called.During the offseason things might change, but this is a penalty on the defense at this time. And should be. In High School the defense entering the neutral zone is a penalty. They don't get a chance to go back.

Please quote me the games in which this infraction has been called the same way as in the Indy/Pats game? I have watched parts of EVERY game this year so, in other words, I have the Ticket and watch lots of football. I have not seen a single time where a DLineman on one side of the center entered the neutral zone and an OLineman from the other side of the center came out of his stance and pointed at him.I dont see where you can claim consistency if it hasnt happened before.

It was mentioned that it happened in the IND/BAL game also.I have not watched many Indy games, but as soons as it happened in this game. I said great move by the OL.

I dont see how you congratulate the Offensive Lineman for the Linesman and Referee making a bad call but to each his own.I think I recall the one in the Indy/Balt game and watching that game, I said they blew the call then as well.

And how many games have you officiated?How many rule book exams have you taken?When I asked this question on an officials website, I got the answer "that is a good call and exactly what an OL should do"

 

[Pat Patriot]

And the officials have been calling this consistently this season. That must mean that is the way the VP of officiating wants it to be called.During the offseason things might change, but this is a penalty on the defense at this time. And should be. In High School the defense entering the neutral zone is a penalty. They don't get a chance to go back.

Please quote me the games in which this infraction has been called the same way as in the Indy/Pats game? I have watched parts of EVERY game this year so, in other words, I have the Ticket and watch lots of football. I have not seen a single time where a DLineman on one side of the center entered the neutral zone and an OLineman from the other side of the center came out of his stance and pointed at him.I dont see where you can claim consistency if it hasnt happened before.

It was mentioned that it happened in the IND/BAL game also.I have not watched many Indy games, but as soons as it happened in this game. I said great move by the OL.

I dont see how you congratulate the Offensive Lineman for the Linesman and Referee making a bad call but to each his own.I think I recall the one in the Indy/Balt game and watching that game, I said they blew the call then as well.

And how many games have you officiated?How many rule book exams have you taken?When I asked this question on an officials website, I got the answer "that is a good call and exactly what an OL should do"

Hey, we disagree. It happens. The highest I have officiated is JV High School. I've been officiating 10 years but that is irrelevant. High School rules mirror the NCAA which are very different than the NFL.If that is the answer you are getting on officials websites, they are wrong. Both by written rule and by common sense. The rule is actually as specific as I could imagine it being. "If the defensive player enters the neutral zone so as to induce the offensive player to across from them to move in an immediate fashion, the penalty will be on the defense."The Indy RG was neither across from Seymour nor did he move in an immediate fashion. I dont know what to tell you, it seems pretty cut and dried to me.

 

[Tau837]

And the officials have been calling this consistently this season. That must mean that is the way the VP of officiating wants it to be called.During the offseason things might change, but this is a penalty on the defense at this time. And should be. In High School the defense entering the neutral zone is a penalty. They don't get a chance to go back.

Please quote me the games in which this infraction has been called the same way as in the Indy/Pats game? I have watched parts of EVERY game this year so, in other words, I have the Ticket and watch lots of football. I have not seen a single time where a DLineman on one side of the center entered the neutral zone and an OLineman from the other side of the center came out of his stance and pointed at him.I dont see where you can claim consistency if it hasnt happened before.

It was mentioned that it happened in the IND/BAL game also.I have not watched many Indy games, but as soons as it happened in this game. I said great move by the OL.

I dont see how you congratulate the Offensive Lineman for the Linesman and Referee making a bad call but to each his own.I think I recall the one in the Indy/Balt game and watching that game, I said they blew the call then as well.

And how many games have you officiated?How many rule book exams have you taken?When I asked this question on an officials website, I got the answer "that is a good call and exactly what an OL should do"

Hey, we disagree. It happens. The highest I have officiated is JV High School. I've been officiating 10 years but that is irrelevant. High School rules mirror the NCAA which are very different than the NFL.If that is the answer you are getting on officials websites, they are wrong. Both by written rule and by common sense. The rule is actually as specific as I could imagine it being. "If the defensive player enters the neutral zone so as to induce the offensive player to across from them to move in an immediate fashion, the penalty will be on the defense."The Indy RG was neither across from Seymour nor did he move in an immediate fashion. I dont know what to tell you, it seems pretty cut and dried to me.

Where are you getting that rule definition? I provided a link earlier and a quote, and it does not say the offensive player must be across from the defensive player, though you have repeatedly said in this thread that is part of the rule.

 

[Pat Patriot]

And the officials have been calling this consistently this season. That must mean that is the way the VP of officiating wants it to be called.During the offseason things might change, but this is a penalty on the defense at this time. And should be. In High School the defense entering the neutral zone is a penalty. They don't get a chance to go back.

Please quote me the games in which this infraction has been called the same way as in the Indy/Pats game? I have watched parts of EVERY game this year so, in other words, I have the Ticket and watch lots of football. I have not seen a single time where a DLineman on one side of the center entered the neutral zone and an OLineman from the other side of the center came out of his stance and pointed at him.I dont see where you can claim consistency if it hasnt happened before.

It was mentioned that it happened in the IND/BAL game also.I have not watched many Indy games, but as soons as it happened in this game. I said great move by the OL.

I dont see how you congratulate the Offensive Lineman for the Linesman and Referee making a bad call but to each his own.I think I recall the one in the Indy/Balt game and watching that game, I said they blew the call then as well.

And how many games have you officiated?How many rule book exams have you taken?When I asked this question on an officials website, I got the answer "that is a good call and exactly what an OL should do"

Hey, we disagree. It happens. The highest I have officiated is JV High School. I've been officiating 10 years but that is irrelevant. High School rules mirror the NCAA which are very different than the NFL.If that is the answer you are getting on officials websites, they are wrong. Both by written rule and by common sense. The rule is actually as specific as I could imagine it being. "If the defensive player enters the neutral zone so as to induce the offensive player to across from them to move in an immediate fashion, the penalty will be on the defense."The Indy RG was neither across from Seymour nor did he move in an immediate fashion. I dont know what to tell you, it seems pretty cut and dried to me.

Where are you getting that rule definition? I provided a link earlier and a quote, and it does not say the offensive player must be across from the defensive player, though you have repeatedly said in this thread that is part of the rule.

The only link I see from you is the NFL Digest of Rules which as far as I could see doesnt define the rule. As far as the quote you provided, I dont see how possible (using even the smallest amount of common sense) that you could say that Seymours actions were trying to enduce the RG into a false start. The RG INTENTIONALLY came out of his stance to point at Seymour.

 

[Tau837]

And the officials have been calling this consistently this season. That must mean that is the way the VP of officiating wants it to be called.During the offseason things might change, but this is a penalty on the defense at this time. And should be. In High School the defense entering the neutral zone is a penalty. They don't get a chance to go back.

Please quote me the games in which this infraction has been called the same way as in the Indy/Pats game? I have watched parts of EVERY game this year so, in other words, I have the Ticket and watch lots of football. I have not seen a single time where a DLineman on one side of the center entered the neutral zone and an OLineman from the other side of the center came out of his stance and pointed at him.I dont see where you can claim consistency if it hasnt happened before.

It was mentioned that it happened in the IND/BAL game also.I have not watched many Indy games, but as soons as it happened in this game. I said great move by the OL.

I dont see how you congratulate the Offensive Lineman for the Linesman and Referee making a bad call but to each his own.I think I recall the one in the Indy/Balt game and watching that game, I said they blew the call then as well.

And how many games have you officiated?How many rule book exams have you taken?When I asked this question on an officials website, I got the answer "that is a good call and exactly what an OL should do"

Hey, we disagree. It happens. The highest I have officiated is JV High School. I've been officiating 10 years but that is irrelevant. High School rules mirror the NCAA which are very different than the NFL.If that is the answer you are getting on officials websites, they are wrong. Both by written rule and by common sense. The rule is actually as specific as I could imagine it being. "If the defensive player enters the neutral zone so as to induce the offensive player to across from them to move in an immediate fashion, the penalty will be on the defense."The Indy RG was neither across from Seymour nor did he move in an immediate fashion. I dont know what to tell you, it seems pretty cut and dried to me.

Where are you getting that rule definition? I provided a link earlier and a quote, and it does not say the offensive player must be across from the defensive player, though you have repeatedly said in this thread that is part of the rule.

The only link I see from you is the NFL Digest of Rules which as far as I could see doesnt define the rule. As far as the quote you provided, I dont see how possible (using even the smallest amount of common sense) that you could say that Seymours actions were trying to enduce the RG into a false start. The RG INTENTIONALLY came out of his stance to point at Seymour.

Yes, with regard to the call on Seymour, you have made your opinion crystal clear many times. I was asking where you got the rule you quoted above. Since you didn't provide a link or quote the NFL rule book, I'm going to assume you don't have the actual rule definition and thus are providing your own interpretation of the rule. The point is, it is just that--your interpretation.

 

[PMENFAN]

I hate this rule. If the true intent was to protect offensive linemen who were getting creamed by defenders jumping offsides, it would be better to penalize the defender with some kind of personal foul if they creamed the OLr who is vulnerable, like they do when WRs who don't make a catch are creamed by a DB.A defender should be allowed to enter the neutral zone and then get back onsides before the snap without being penalized and the OL should have to remain set. If the defender crosses the neutral zone and touches the OL, the defender is offsides. Simple as that. The OL knows the snap count and has no excuse for moving before the snap, regardless of what the defense is doing.

I disagree there. Yes, the offense knows the snap count, but when you have somebody coming at you, your instinct causes you to react, regardless of the snap count. Junior Seau sax famous in his younger days for getting right over a defender and inducing false starts. One, because he was quick, and two, because he would sit there and flinch like the play had started and the lineman had missed the snap. IIRC, that's why the rule went in. Many defenders used the strategy. I like the rule. I just felt it was horribly applied. Seymour had arrested his momentum, was back across the line, and the RG came out of his stance, not into any type of football play stance (run or pass block) as if it were reactionary, but pointing. It simply wasn't reactionary. It was a false start, and a bad call. Instead of 3rd and five, in the case of no call. OF third and 10, right call, they had first and 10.

 

[GregR_2]

...The only link I see from you is the NFL Digest of Rules which as far as I could see doesnt define the rule. As far as the quote you provided, I dont see how possible (using even the smallest amount of common sense) that you could say that Seymours actions were trying to enduce the RG into a false start. The RG INTENTIONALLY came out of his stance to point at Seymour.

The applicable parts of the official rule read:

After the neutral zone starts, no player of either team at snap may:(a) encroach upon it (3-18)(b) be offside (3-19)...Note 2: It is a Neutral-Zone Infraction when a defender enters the neutral zone prior to th snap, causing the offensive player(s) in close proximity to react (move) immediately; officials are to blow their whistles immediately. If there is no immediate reaction by the offensive player(s) in close proximity, and the defensive player returns to a legal position prior to the snap without contacting an opponent, there is no foul. For offensive linemen aligned from tight end to tight end, a player is in close proximity if he is within 2 1/2 players of another player. For flexed or split receivers, a player is in close proximity if he is anywhere between the flexed or split receiver and the ball.

 

[PlayaHata]

Colts fan here.

My take on the Seymour offsides call was that the OG moved a fraction of a second late strictly to draw an offsides call, not because he had a natural reaction. I too have watched a lot of football this season I can't think of one instance where a similar play was called as offsides. A similar situation is when a DL enters the neutral zone and the center hikes the ball immediately even though it wasn't called for in the snap count. IMO offensive linemen have been coached to "react" to force the officials to throw a flag and pick up an easy five yards.

Is this possibly bending/breaking the rules or at least the spirit of the rule? Definitely. I'm sure it will be brought up to the NFL rules committee in the offseason.

I seem to remember a certain team a few years ago taking advantage of a pass interference or illegal contact rule not being called correctly. Players were obviously coached to take advantage of the fact that penalties were not being called. That rule (or at least how it was called) was addressed in the offseason and I have no doubt that this rule will be dealt with equally.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I hate this rule. If the true intent was to protect offensive linemen who were getting creamed by defenders jumping offsides, it would be better to penalize the defender with some kind of personal foul if they creamed the OLr who is vulnerable, like they do when WRs who don't make a catch are creamed by a DB.A defender should be allowed to enter the neutral zone and then get back onsides before the snap without being penalized and the OL should have to remain set. If the defender crosses the neutral zone and touches the OL, the defender is offsides. Simple as that. The OL knows the snap count and has no excuse for moving before the snap, regardless of what the defense is doing.

I disagree there. Yes, the offense knows the snap count, but when you have somebody coming at you, your instinct causes you to react, regardless of the snap count. Junior Seau sax famous in his younger days for getting right over a defender and inducing false starts. One, because he was quick, and two, because he would sit there and flinch like the play had started and the lineman had missed the snap. IIRC, that's why the rule went in. Many defenders used the strategy. I like the rule. I just felt it was horribly applied. Seymour had arrested his momentum, was back across the line, and the RG came out of his stance, not into any type of football play stance (run or pass block) as if it were reactionary, but pointing. It simply wasn't reactionary. It was a false start, and a bad call. Instead of 3rd and five, in the case of no call. OF third and 10, right call, they had first and 10.

I like the rule as I always thought it was wrong when a 300 pound guy comes at you and you make a slight flinch and it is your fault. However, I think they misapplied the rule this time. Somewhat interestingly, my brother felt that what happened here would happen often and the refs would blow the calls so he thought it was a bad rule. However, up to this play, it has really been called correctly and he even said "I was wrong and it has worked out well" ... of course until the Seymour play. Overall, it is a good rule that is called correctly at a much higher % of the time than almost every other penalty.Now let's get into holding calls and PI's

 

[PMENFAN]

Just curious, why do you think that? Seems to me that the whole situation could be more easily and correctly called if the rule specified that no one (offense or defense) should be allowed in the neutral zone prior to the snap. I've never quite understood why the defense is given this particular advantage.

I've always wondered that too.

I think the D is allows the margin for error, because the QB is allowed to try and draw them off sides The OL even gets sucked in sometimes, knowing the snap count, but the defense doesn't know the count and gets sucked in. If they can get back before the actual snap, and without making contact, no penalty. If not, or if they make contact, penalty. Should QB's be allowed to try and draw the defenders off sides? I think it's a cheapening of the game. All teams try and do it. Some are better at it than others. Many try it, especially on 4th and short, long snap counts, and then time out when the D doesn't jump, and then a punt.

 

[PMENFAN]

Colts fan here.My take on the Seymour offsides call was that the OG moved a fraction of a second late strictly to draw an offsides call, not because he had a natural reaction. I too have watched a lot of football this season I can't think of one instance where a similar play was called as offsides. A similar situation is when a DL enters the neutral zone and the center hikes the ball immediately even though it wasn't called for in the snap count. IMO offensive linemen have been coached to "react" to force the officials to throw a flag and pick up an easy five yards.Is this possibly bending/breaking the rules or at least the spirit of the rule? Definitely. I'm sure it will be brought up to the NFL rules committee in the offseason.I seem to remember a certain team a few years ago taking advantage of a pass interference or illegal contact rule not being called correctly. Players were obviously coached to take advantage of the fact that penalties were not being called. That rule (or at least how it was called) was addressed in the offseason and I have no doubt that this rule will be dealt with equally.

Much like the center snapping the ball when he sees a player in the neutral zone to draw the penalty, I wouldn't have had a problem if they had called the penalty if the player had come out of his stance like the play had started. He didn't. That was my problem with the way it was called. He wasn't drawn into a false start (the intent of the rule). He came out of his stance and called the penalty, after a delay that was well beyond what I would consider a reactionary time. That's why I felt it should have been a false start.

 

[roarlions]

The applicable parts of the official rule read:

After the neutral zone starts, no player of either team at snap may:(a) encroach upon it (3-18)(b) be offside (3-19)...Note 2: It is a Neutral-Zone Infraction when a defender enters the neutral zone prior to th snap, causing the offensive player(s) in close proximity to react (move) immediately; officials are to blow their whistles immediately. If there is no immediate reaction by the offensive player(s) in close proximity, and the defensive player returns to a legal position prior to the snap without contacting an opponent, there is no foul. For offensive linemen aligned from tight end to tight end, a player is in close proximity if he is within 2 1/2 players of another player. For flexed or split receivers, a player is in close proximity if he is anywhere between the flexed or split receiver and the ball.

Thanks for posting this, I was trying to find the actual definition.After reading this I don't have much problem with the rule, except for that part about close proximity. I would think close proximity would be much more limited than what is described in the rule. Within 2 1/2 players is a joke and indicates that the rule has nothing to do with protecting vulnerable offensive linemen. If I understand this correctly, a nose tackle over the center could enter the neutral zone and the tight end would be allowed to move immediately, causing the nose tackle to be guilty of a neutral-zone infraction. If that is the case, I call it a joke. An OL reacting to such a move should have to be within 1 player of the DL making such a move. If they would narrow the close proximity definition and enforce the "react immediately" component, I'd have no trouble with the rule.I still think the flinch rule is a joke. Defensive linemen move and shift positions all the time without an offensive linemen jumping out of their set position, I don't see how a DL flinching is worse than that.

 

[Pat Patriot]

...

The only link I see from you is the NFL Digest of Rules which as far as I could see doesnt define the rule. As far as the quote you provided, I dont see how possible (using even the smallest amount of common sense) that you could say that Seymours actions were trying to enduce the RG into a false start. The RG INTENTIONALLY came out of his stance to point at Seymour.

The applicable parts of the official rule read:

After the neutral zone starts, no player of either team at snap may:

(a) encroach upon it (3-18)

(b) be offside (3-19)

...

Note 2: It is a Neutral-Zone Infraction when a defender enters the neutral zone prior to th snap, causing the offensive player(s) in close proximity to react (move) immediately; officials are to blow their whistles immediately. If there is no immediate reaction by the offensive player(s) in close proximity, and the defensive player returns to a legal position prior to the snap without contacting an opponent, there is no foul. For offensive linemen aligned from tight end to tight end, a player is in close proximity if he is within 2 1/2 players of another player. For flexed or split receivers, a player is in close proximity if he is anywhere between the flexed or split receiver and the ball.

If you can read that rule and say with a straight face that the RG's reaction to Seymour entering the neutral zone was immediate, then I dont know what to tell you. Seymour had already stopped his momentum and was moving backwards when the RG stood up and pointed at him.

 

[DropKick]

...

The only link I see from you is the NFL Digest of Rules which as far as I could see doesnt define the rule. As far as the quote you provided, I dont see how possible (using even the smallest amount of common sense) that you could say that Seymours actions were trying to enduce the RG into a false start. The RG INTENTIONALLY came out of his stance to point at Seymour.

The applicable parts of the official rule read:

After the neutral zone starts, no player of either team at snap may:

(a) encroach upon it (3-18)

(b) be offside (3-19)

...

Note 2: It is a Neutral-Zone Infraction when a defender enters the neutral zone prior to th snap, causing the offensive player(s) in close proximity to react (move) immediately; officials are to blow their whistles immediately. If there is no immediate reaction by the offensive player(s) in close proximity, and the defensive player returns to a legal position prior to the snap without contacting an opponent, there is no foul. For offensive linemen aligned from tight end to tight end, a player is in close proximity if he is within 2 1/2 players of another player. For flexed or split receivers, a player is in close proximity if he is anywhere between the flexed or split receiver and the ball.

If you can read that rule and say with a straight face that the RG's reaction to Seymour entering the neutral zone was immediate, then I dont know what to tell you. Seymour had already stopped his momentum and was moving backwards when the RG stood up and pointed at him.

I'd like to see the play again. Live, I though Seymour was already BACK on-side before the lineman stood and pointed. The delay was that long. And purely intentional movement???? Bad call. One of several.

 

[dparker713]

Its not like the right guard was looking directly at Seymore. The delay was slightly too long, but if he did see him, it was out of the corner of his eye which can easily account for some delay.

Either way, the 2 and a half person zone of influence gives this rule a wide area of applicability and enough wiggle room that I've got no problem with the judgment call of the official.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Its not like the right guard was looking directly at Seymore. The delay was slightly too long, but if he did see him, it was out of the corner of his eye which can easily account for some delay. Either way, the 2 and a half person zone of influence gives this rule a wide area of applicability and enough wiggle room that I've got no problem with the judgment call of the official.

I'm being serious. Please explain what judgement by the official you are referring. His judgement that the RG was influenced into a false start by Seymour? He INTENTIONALLY came out of his stance to point out that Seymour was in the neutral zone. The RG did not make a natural and immediate reaction to Seymour entering the neutral zone. Do you think that the judgement of the referee was that it WAS an immediate and natural reaction? If so that is a TERRIBLE judgement but I guess no worse than not actually knowing how the rule is supposed to be applied.

 

[Tau837]

Its not like the right guard was looking directly at Seymore. The delay was slightly too long, but if he did see him, it was out of the corner of his eye which can easily account for some delay. Either way, the 2 and a half person zone of influence gives this rule a wide area of applicability and enough wiggle room that I've got no problem with the judgment call of the official.

I'm being serious. Please explain what judgement by the official you are referring. His judgement that the RG was influenced into a false start by Seymour? He INTENTIONALLY came out of his stance to point out that Seymour was in the neutral zone. The RG did not make a natural and immediate reaction to Seymour entering the neutral zone. Do you think that the judgement of the referee was that it WAS an immediate and natural reaction? If so that is a TERRIBLE judgement but I guess no worse than not actually knowing how the rule is supposed to be applied.

Without being able to view the replay, I wonder if the RG made a minor flinch as a result of Seymour's move into the neutral zone, then belatedly stood and pointed because he was afraid he'd be flagged for a false start if Seymour wasn't flagged for inducing. I don't know this, because I don't have the replay available, just speculating.

 

[dparker713]

Its not like the right guard was looking directly at Seymore. The delay was slightly too long, but if he did see him, it was out of the corner of his eye which can easily account for some delay.

Either way, the 2 and a half person zone of influence gives this rule a wide area of applicability and enough wiggle room that I've got no problem with the judgment call of the official.

I'm being serious. Please explain what judgement by the official you are referring. His judgement that the RG was influenced into a false start by Seymour? He INTENTIONALLY came out of his stance to point out that Seymour was in the neutral zone. The RG did not make a natural and immediate reaction to Seymour entering the neutral zone.

Do you think that the judgement of the referee was that it WAS an immediate and natural reaction? If so that is a TERRIBLE judgement but I guess no worse than not actually knowing how the rule is supposed to be applied.

Its YOUR judgment that the RG intentionally came out of his stance to point at Seymore, without seeing hte replay, its just as possible that the RG moved, realized he'd moved immediately, and then pointed down the line to Seymore after realizing the play hadnt started. I went ahead and italicized what you wrote thats relies on your judgments, it doesn't leave much left over. The rule is vague and leaves alot of leeway to the official. Think maybe, just maybe, your bias towards the Pats blinds you from even considering any alternative explanations? Or are you going to keep claiming you are 100% certain of exactly what each player was thinking when they moved?

Not like the pats wouldn't have found a way to choke without the ref calling this penalty.

 

[renesauz]

And the officials have been calling this consistently this season. That must mean that is the way the VP of officiating wants it to be called.During the offseason things might change, but this is a penalty on the defense at this time. And should be. In High School the defense entering the neutral zone is a penalty. They don't get a chance to go back.

Please quote me the games in which this infraction has been called the same way as in the Indy/Pats game? I have watched parts of EVERY game this year so, in other words, I have the Ticket and watch lots of football. I have not seen a single time where a DLineman on one side of the center entered the neutral zone and an OLineman from the other side of the center came out of his stance and pointed at him.I dont see where you can claim consistency if it hasnt happened before.

It was mentioned that it happened in the IND/BAL game also.I have not watched many Indy games, but as soons as it happened in this game. I said great move by the OL.

I dont see how you congratulate the Offensive Lineman for the Linesman and Referee making a bad call but to each his own.I think I recall the one in the Indy/Balt game and watching that game, I said they blew the call then as well.

And how many games have you officiated?How many rule book exams have you taken?When I asked this question on an officials website, I got the answer "that is a good call and exactly what an OL should do"

Hey, we disagree. It happens. The highest I have officiated is JV High School. I've been officiating 10 years but that is irrelevant. High School rules mirror the NCAA which are very different than the NFL.If that is the answer you are getting on officials websites, they are wrong. Both by written rule and by common sense. The rule is actually as specific as I could imagine it being. "If the defensive player enters the neutral zone so as to induce the offensive player to across from them to move in an immediate fashion, the penalty will be on the defense."The Indy RG was neither across from Seymour nor did he move in an immediate fashion. I dont know what to tell you, it seems pretty cut and dried to me.

To me too. I couldn't believe they called that on the defense. I thought that was as obvious a blown call as I've seen since last year's super bowl. The rule is, to me, crystal clear....the O-lineman has to be INDUCED into moving by some action of the defender. To stand straight up and point, almost a FULL SECOND after the defender's action, is CLEARLY NOT being "induced". An induced lineman flinches towards his blocking assignment.

 

[Pat Patriot]

And the officials have been calling this consistently this season. That must mean that is the way the VP of officiating wants it to be called.During the offseason things might change, but this is a penalty on the defense at this time. And should be. In High School the defense entering the neutral zone is a penalty. They don't get a chance to go back.

Please quote me the games in which this infraction has been called the same way as in the Indy/Pats game? I have watched parts of EVERY game this year so, in other words, I have the Ticket and watch lots of football. I have not seen a single time where a DLineman on one side of the center entered the neutral zone and an OLineman from the other side of the center came out of his stance and pointed at him.I dont see where you can claim consistency if it hasnt happened before.

It was mentioned that it happened in the IND/BAL game also.I have not watched many Indy games, but as soons as it happened in this game. I said great move by the OL.

I dont see how you congratulate the Offensive Lineman for the Linesman and Referee making a bad call but to each his own.I think I recall the one in the Indy/Balt game and watching that game, I said they blew the call then as well.

And how many games have you officiated?How many rule book exams have you taken?When I asked this question on an officials website, I got the answer "that is a good call and exactly what an OL should do"

Hey, we disagree. It happens. The highest I have officiated is JV High School. I've been officiating 10 years but that is irrelevant. High School rules mirror the NCAA which are very different than the NFL.If that is the answer you are getting on officials websites, they are wrong. Both by written rule and by common sense. The rule is actually as specific as I could imagine it being. "If the defensive player enters the neutral zone so as to induce the offensive player to across from them to move in an immediate fashion, the penalty will be on the defense."The Indy RG was neither across from Seymour nor did he move in an immediate fashion. I dont know what to tell you, it seems pretty cut and dried to me.

To me too. I couldn't believe they called that on the defense. I thought that was as obvious a blown call as I've seen since last year's super bowl. The rule is, to me, crystal clear....the O-lineman has to be INDUCED into moving by some action of the defender. To stand straight up and point, almost a FULL SECOND after the defender's action, is CLEARLY NOT being "induced". An induced lineman flinches towards his blocking assignment.

I think this is where the disconnect is. I dont think I am making a judgement call at all. I think it is obvious to anybody with 2 eyes what the Indy player did.I feel the Patriots got beat in this game and therefore have stayed away from discussing any "judgement" calls. I dont see anything biased about discussing a blatently missed call based on misapplication of a rule. In this game there were 2, the offsides called against the Pats and the Pass Interference called against the Pats.Judgement calls seemed to go both ways in the game. Caldwell of the Pats got raped in the back of the Endzone and Dallas Clark, more subtly, had his arm pulled down prior to the arrival of the ball in the endzone. Both should have been PI.

 

[dparker713]

I think this is where the disconnect is. I dont think, I feel. The Patriots got beat in this game. Judgement calls seemed to go both ways in the game.

Fixed.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Its not like the right guard was looking directly at Seymore. The delay was slightly too long, but if he did see him, it was out of the corner of his eye which can easily account for some delay.

Either way, the 2 and a half person zone of influence gives this rule a wide area of applicability and enough wiggle room that I've got no problem with the judgment call of the official.

I'm being serious. Please explain what judgement by the official you are referring. His judgement that the RG was influenced into a false start by Seymour? He INTENTIONALLY came out of his stance to point out that Seymour was in the neutral zone. The RG did not make a natural and immediate reaction to Seymour entering the neutral zone.

Do you think that the judgement of the referee was that it WAS an immediate and natural reaction? If so that is a TERRIBLE judgement but I guess no worse than not actually knowing how the rule is supposed to be applied.

Its YOUR judgment that the RG intentionally came out of his stance to point at Seymore, without seeing hte replay, its just as possible that the RG moved, realized he'd moved immediately, and then pointed down the line to Seymore after realizing the play hadnt started. I went ahead and italicized what you wrote thats relies on your judgments, it doesn't leave much left over. The rule is vague and leaves alot of leeway to the official. Think maybe, just maybe, your bias towards the Pats blinds you from even considering any alternative explanations? Or are you going to keep claiming you are 100% certain of exactly what each player was thinking when they moved?

Not like the pats wouldn't have found a way to choke without the ref calling this penalty.

Thickheaded much? I think it is beyond dispute that the OLineman stood up as Seymour was retreating and pointed at him. He didnt flinch at all. It doesnt matter what Seymours intent was, he didnt INDUCE the OLineman into a false start. The OLineman false started on his own and should have been penalized.I dont know what the hell some of you are/were looking at.

I am not disagreeing with the referees judgement. I am saying the referee did not do his job properly. He did not administer the rule properly. If his judgement was that Seymour drew the RG into a false start then he must have been drinking before the game.

He administered the rule as if any movement by the offense while the defense is in the neutral zone is a penalty against the defense and that is just not true. It is not as simple as a who moved first situation which is how he called it.