My point to you is if you want consistency in how people call something or the justification for it, you better put it in writing to at the very least take away the different interpretations. If you do not think that happens, why did the NF change the rule about PI to the area of the field the ball is thrown? Officials were already using common sense and not calling DPI to the opposite side of the field.

After all these rules are under Illegal Personal Contact. I do not think it is too much to require some kind of contact. But this is why we get paid to make the big bucks. These are judgments we will have to make.

Peace

2-21 HURDLING
Hurdling is an attempt by a player to jump with one or both feet or knees foremost over an opponent who is contacting the ground with no part of his body except one or both feet.

9-4 ILLEGAL PERSONAL CONTACT
ART. 1 . . . No player or nonplayer shall fight.
ART. 2 . . . No player or nonplayer shall intentionally contact an official.
ART. 3 . . . No player or nonplayer shall:

a. Swing the foot, shin or knee into an opponent, nor extend the knee to meet a blocker.
b. Charge into or throw an opponent to the ground after he is obviously out of the play, or after the ball is clearly dead either in or out of bounds.
c. Pile on any player who is lying on the ground.
d. Hurdle an opponent.
e. Position himself on the shoulders or body of a teammate or opponent to gain an advantage.
f. Throw a helmet to trip an opponent.
g. Make any other contact with an opponent which is deemed unnecessary and which incites roughness.

h. Grasp an opponent's face mask or any edge of a helmet opening.
i. Butt block, face tackle or spear.
j. Intentionally use his helmet to butt or ram an opponent.
l. Strike an opponent with his fist, locked hands, forearm or elbow, nor kick or knee him.
Penalty - Other personal fouls (Arts. 3a through g) – (S38) – 15 yards;

The definition does not say any contact must be made and rule 9 says illegal to hurdle, no mention of contact needed. So in NF, if you hurdle, whether there is contact or not, it is BY RULE, a foul.

I just don't see how you can say this is a judgement call in this case when it meets the definition of hurdling in rule 2 and a foul in rule 9.

Call whatever you like. Then hope and pray that the people work for you feel the same way. I learned a long time ago that what you call and what is accepted are two different things. Do not be a maverick. ;)

Peace

Rut, I don't know how you couldn't justify to any supervisor calling it in the play that was on the video using NF rules as it fits the foul to a T. I do see that you could have serious problems justifying NOT calling it for the very same reason of it fits the definition of a hurdling foul to a T and is a major safety issue.

The reason it is a major safety issue is if the hurdler does make contact, it will probably be with a knee or foot to the head of the defender and could easily result in an serious injury. There is a good chance also that if the runner gets tripped up in his hurdle, he could come down on his head. Even if he doesn't come down on his head, he will be coming down in an awkward position from a height higher than normal, which in itself could cause a serious injury. Safety issues will always go your way with supervisors. They harp on it all the time. Now in NCAA, it is legal, but the NF does have a few other rules that error more on the side of safety than the NCAA, right or wrong makes no difference.

OK whatever you say my man. We obviously do not work for the same people.

Thank you for the sermon, but where did the NF publish this?

Once again, does the NF have your point of view clearly listed?

I am still waiting.

Peace

True, but it does meet the definition of being a foul for hurdling in NF.

I think all of that is common sense on how either case could result in serious injury. Hard to refute the 2 things I mentioned.

Yes, the NF does clearly list this view.

2-21 HURDLING
Hurdling is an attempt by a player to jump with one or both feet or knees foremost over an opponent who is contacting the ground with no part of his body except one or both feet.

9-4 ILLEGAL PERSONAL CONTACT
ART. 3 . . . No player or nonplayer shall:
d. Hurdle an opponent.

Pretty clear.

A lot of things meet the definition and they are not called based solely on the definition.

So could a block below the waist and we make determinations that we all the time that might be on the edge of the rules as it relates to the FBZ. BTW, if a kid goes airborne to "hurdle" a defender and lands on his head, I really do not think the flag is going to take away the injury. Also in my 11 seasons of HS ball I have never seen a kid attempt what I saw on this tape. Not one time and I have seen some very good athletes from time to time.

I asked you for a case play. I know what the rule says. Where is the case play that says exactly how this is to be enforced?

I could quote many blocking regulations and no where does it say anything about "point of attack" or the many other philosophies that we use to make a consistent call. Once again, you are only focusing on the rules. I am focusing on the application of those rules and the spirit of those rules. BTW, it still falls under Illegal Personal Contact, not Unsportsmanlike Conduct.

Peace

I have no problem disagreeing.

MOST rules do not have a case play.

I never said it was USC. I stated several times it was IPContact.

Have a good BB season Rut!

Most rules have a case play or ruling if the NF wants to take away any ambiguousness in the rule. When you say something is a foul based on Illegal Personal Conduct and then you expect a foul to be called without any contact, you need to have something to clarify this. If it is as clear as you say, there would not be others that asked the same question in an association meeting we had some years back.

Oh well.

Peace

I think the reason it is in the category of IPC is cuz ALL PF's are in that category in rule 9-4. It is a PF, so it must be in rule 9-4, which cannot be titled personal fouls cuz not all the fouls in there and are classified as a PF's.

Probably could be clearer.