[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by SoGARef

The snap is an obvious snap infraction

I'll ask about that below.

The ball is snapped to the QB (again, we are assuming this is a legal snap) who then turns with a live ball to the coach and declares this is the wrong ball. Does not the defense have some responsibility to be aware of a live ball situation? Remember, there was nothing deceiving done before the snap and at the snap the only thing to happen was the offense did not move.

I'm having a hard time seeing this as deceiving and rather a defense that is asleep at the wheel. Yes, I can see where a referee could invoke Rule 9-3-4 and say, "I don't like it and in my opinion it is an unfair act."

I would hope that this would be viewed as akin to feigning injury or simulating an official's whistle. The defense is not asleep in the sense that would leave them vulnerable to a quick play; they're paying att'n to the right thing, but what they're paying att'n to is unfair and even dangerous.

I still haven't seen the video, but the written descriptions here don't necessarily preclude a legal snap. I could imagine various body movements by the snapper during a time the ball is being moved quickly & continuously backward. For example, the snapper is motionless with both hands on the ball, and then begins a turn on one foot at the beginning of which the ball is taken from the ground, ending with the snapper facing his end line and the ball's being taken from his hands by a player entitled to do so. The ball is moving backwards in one motion throughout, describing a circular arc that starts on the ground and ends at waist height. (Yeah, I know, illegal in Canadian football.)

What exactly made the snap in the video (I haven't seen) illegal?

Meanwhile, here's a snap I've wondered about the legality of for some time. Suppose the snapper begins the conventional between-the-legs snap, but at the end of it, wraps the ball around the inside of one leg so that it leaves his hand(s) still moving backwards but at a sharp angle. The ball is continously moving backwards, but the motion itself could be said to be discontinuous in that it's not a straight line or smooth arc, but consists of a straight-back segment and an angled-back segment. The motion is continuous in time but "broken" or "interrupted" in geometry. Legal?

Robert