End of Game, Nose Swats at Snap

[KWH]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Derock2004

[i]But how can it be a touchdown if the ball never touches the ground or an A player? Isn't that the definition of a legal snap? And is it not a rule that a "legal snap" will cause the ball to become live???

Man I am confused!

DeRock-
In the play above the snap WAS LEGAL.
It appears you are thinking that because the ball has not touched the ground or a backfield player it was not a legal snap.
Please note: The requirment of the ball touching the ground or a backfield player is only necessary WHEN AN "A" LINEMAN IS INVOLVED.
Restated, since a "TEAM A LINEMAN" was not involved in the play, the snap was legal!
I hope this helps

[Patton]

Originally posted by Derock2004
Man I am confused!

[B] I couldn't agree more!!!

[Derock2004]

Ok, I understand NFHS says its legal but it still seems to be illogical to me. I will "try" to leave this topic alone and submit to the masses that this is a legal play. However, for the record I personally and respectfully disagree that this should be ruled as a legal play! End of discussion.

[Derock2004]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by KWH

Originally posted by Derock2004

DeRock-
In the play above the snap WAS LEGAL.
It appears you are thinking that because the ball has not touched the ground or a backfield player it was not a legal snap.
Please note: The requirment of the ball touching the ground or a backfield player is only necessary WHEN AN "A" LINEMAN IS INVOLVED.
Restated, since a "TEAM A LINEMAN" was not involved in the play, the snap was legal!
I hope this helps

This helps because it forced me to critically read the definition of a Snap. Now, I can honestly say I see why this play is legal (I still don't agree with it but at least NOW I see why it is legal).

Section 38, Art 3...The snap ends when the ball touches the ground or ANY player.

Interpretation: When the Nose Guard swats (touches) the ball the snap legally ended. If someone explained that to me earlier and I missed it, I apologize. This one word "any" seems out of place since the entire definition focuses the readers attention to the offensive side of the ball. NFHS could have better clarified this definition by adding "any A or B player.

In my opinion, this is an unfair rule. The snapper should be allowed the opportunity to put the ball in play without someone swatting at the ball but again, it is legal!

[mcrowder]

That's what the snapper gets for playing football in a state that doesn't use real football rules like Texas and Massachusetts do.

[Patton]

Originally posted by Derock2004
In my opinion, this is an unfair rule. The snapper should be allowed the opportunity to put the ball in play without someone swatting at the ball but again, it is legal!

I can respect that you think it's an unfair rule, but how many of us have seen this happen? The NCAA has made it illegal probably due to the speed and quickness of the defensive linemen nowadays and also their encroachment rules. Obviously it can happen at the HS ranks, but quite rare.

[Patton]

Originally posted by mcrowder
That's what the snapper gets for playing football in a state that doesn't use real football rules like Texas and Massachusetts do.

Hey mcrowder, you are the minority here!!

[KWH]

Originally posted by mcrowder
That's what the snapper gets for playing football in a state that doesn't use real football rules like Texas and Massachusetts do.

\

Opinions are like butt-holes, everybody has one!
FYI - If Massachusetts switches to NFHS rules, (and there is still discussion toward that effort) it will be 50-1 (including the District of Columbia) nationwide as to states using NFHS rules.
That being said, we all know the better officials can work and understand two sets of rules.
That being said, Texas will most likely continue to only use one set of rules.