|
Wed Aug 25, 2004, 08:40am
|
|||
|
|||
The NF has added to the definition of a snapper 2-30-14 that he "is facing his opponent's goal line with his shoulders approximately parallel thereto".
My question is if the snapper doesn't meet this requirement is this a dead ball foul- illegal snap- or a foul simultaneous with the snap- like illegal formation. The NF has made no other comment on this change from what I can find. Thanks. 
|
|
Wed Aug 25, 2004, 08:54am
|
|||
|
|||
|
This change was made just to clarify that the foul for roughing the snapper is only applicable when the player who is snapping the ball meets this definition.
Formations where the team has the snapper standing or crouching sideways to snap the ball will not get a roughing the snapper call.
|
|
Wed Aug 25, 2004, 09:10am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would such a formation even be legal..? That same phrase is in the definition of a lineman... (2-30-9) If the snapper isn't facing the opponent's goal line, then he isn't a lineman... At the same time, he isn't a back... Therefore, you have an illegal formation on A... (7-2-3)
I think this is a "clarification", but perhaps it's not all that clear what they were clarifying... 
|
|
Wed Aug 25, 2004, 10:16am
|
|||
|
|||
|
By definition the snap begins when the "snapper" first moves the ball (2-38-2) and also by definition the snapper must face his opponent's goal line with his shoulders approx parellel thereto and who snaps the ball (2-30-14). With these defintions in mind, I would have a foul at the snap if the snapper was crouching/standing sideways to make the snap (illegal formation).
|
|
Wed Aug 25, 2004, 10:47am
|
|||
|
|||
|
We had an interesting conversation on this a year ago. If there was an 8th person up on the line, then you have 7 legally on the line. We were thinking this might make the formation legal. Any objections?
|
|
Wed Aug 25, 2004, 11:46am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Yes...
Quote:
|
|
Wed Aug 25, 2004, 12:53pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
If he's not a "snapper" by definition yet he snaps the ball- is that a legal snap?
He doesn't meet the requirements of a snapper. 7-2-4... a snap shall be such that the ball immediately leaves the hand OF THE SNAPPER... yadda yadda yadda ...an illegal snap causes the ball to remain dead." Based on this wouldn't we kill it right there??
|
|
Wed Aug 25, 2004, 09:31pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
if a guard wasnt lined up right it would be a live ball foul. so why would you blow it dead if the center wasnt lined up right. says nothing about snapping it, just he must be lined up right to be considered a snapper. just like the guard must be lined up correctly.
i think the definition was added for teams that run the swinging gate, when the snaper snaps the ball sideways. prevents him from getting a better angle on the sideways snap.
|
|
Thu Aug 26, 2004, 01:27am
|
|||
|
|||
|
whatgameyouwatchinblue:
If the snap isn't legal the play is blown dead. How can you have a legal snap if the guy who snaps the ball isn't a snapper (meaning, he doesn't meet the definition of a snapper)? -SW---
|
|
Thu Aug 26, 2004, 11:22am
|
|||
|
|||
|
You guys bring up some sound arguments and I would have no problem calling this illegal formation.
Our rationale in our discussion was the following.... there's a rule that implies a snapper could stand sideways (see 7.2.3 it states in part "if it is snapped between the snapper's legs..."). On Snake~eyes argument I've always said the same thing but someone pointed out that technically the rule doesn't say anything about being on the line or a back. It says only 1 may penetrate the vertical plane through the waistline of his nearest teammate who is on his line (7.2.3). I bought the argument at the time but I like the point of the snapper definition to invalidate the reasons why people say this is legal.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
