Hurdling

[w_sohl]

http://ebaumsworld.com/2006/11/football-hurdle.html

This is illegal correct?

I couldn't find it in the rule or case book. What is teh signal if illegal?

[MJT]

Yes, that would be a foul for hurdling. It is a PF for illegal personal contact. See rule 9-4-d.

[JRutledge]

We had this discussion on another site. I personally have a big problem with this being called if there is no contact. Personal fouls involve contact. If there is no contact all you could have is unsportsmanlike conduct, which is not considered a foul under that part of the rules.

Also understand that the NCAA rules allow this when it clearly involves the runner. All the NF does is gives you a definition and a foul for hurdling but sets very poor perimeters to how and when this should be called. You should not have to here how to call this from the internet. This fact alone is going to allow different interpretations to be used.

Peace

[w_sohl]

In this particular play you would definately flag it because the ball carrier actually steps on the back of the defender, however, if he had avoided ALL contact with the defender you would have passed?

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by w_sohl

This is illegal correct?

Not where this game was played which was Texas HS football. Perfectly legal.

[iceman70]

Keep it simple. What is the runner doing? Hurdling his opponent. Is that legal? According to 9-4-3d, it is not. The definition 2-21 does not require contact. Correct me if I am wrong, but NCAA rules this illegal as well--provided it is not the runner.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I personally have a big problem with this being called if there is no contact. Personal fouls involve contact. If there is no contact all you could have is unsportsmanlike conduct, which is not considered a foul under that part of the rules.

Face guarding?

Interlocked blocking?

Helping the runner?

These are all fouls that may not include actual contact with the opponent.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Face guarding?

Interlocked blocking?

Helping the runner?

These are all fouls that may not include actual contact with the opponent.

Passing interference is not a personal foul.

Interlock blocking involves actually blocking and is also not a personal foul.

Helping the runner does not involve contact with the opponent. Not much different than intentional grounding does not involve any contact. Even with helping the runner involves some philosophy and a common sense approach.

Again my point was not talking about whether the rule says something or not, I do not think it is a good call without contact. I also feel I am not likely to pull that rule out of my behind. Do what you feel is best.

Peace

[iceman70]

JRutledge,

Just curious, rule 9-4-3f, "Throw a helmet to trip an opponent". If the player jumps and the helmet misses him, no flag right?

It could have been worded, "Throw a helmet AND trip an opponent".

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by iceman70

JRutledge,

Just curious, rule 9-4-3f, "Throw a helmet to trip an opponent". If the player jumps and the helmet misses him, no flag right?

It could have been worded, "Throw a helmet AND trip an opponent".

You can look for all the scenarios that you like. I stand by what I said and how I am going to call this. If you cannot tell the difference in the statement above, this is something you will have to deal with.

I do know that last year (or a couple of years ago) there was a call made in a state final where I live that someone called helping the runner and took the rulebook so literally. The call was widely questioned even thought the language could have been technically right.

Peace

[wisref2]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We had this discussion on another site. I personally have a big problem with this being called if there is no contact. Personal fouls involve contact. If there is no contact all you could have is unsportsmanlike conduct, which is not considered a foul under that part of the rules.

Also understand that the NCAA rules allow this when it clearly involves the runner. All the NF does is gives you a definition and a foul for hurdling but sets very poor perimeters to how and when this should be called. You should not have to here how to call this from the internet. This fact alone is going to allow different interpretations to be used.

Peace

Contact is not necessary for a personal foul - and that is why hurdling (which by definition does not have to involve contact) is listed as one of the personal fouls (9-4-3d). Would you also not call these other personal fouls if there is no contact:
Throw a helmet to trip an opponent (9-4-3f)
Position himself on the shoulders of a teammate (9-4-3e)
Kick at or punch at an opponent without making contact (9-4-1)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by wisref2

Contact is not necessary for a personal foul - and that is why hurdling (which by definition does not have to involve contact) is listed as one of the personal fouls (9-4-3d). Would you also not call these other personal fouls if there is no contact:
Throw a helmet to trip an opponent (9-4-3f)
Position himself on the shoulders of a teammate (9-4-3e)
Kick at or punch at an opponent without making contact (9-4-1)

Point of attack is not necessary for a holding call, but we do use that philosophy to make that call (at least not officials that tend to be very good).

All rules have a philosophy. If you want to call this go right ahead. I would like some contact to call this. That is my philosophy and I am sticking to it.

BTW, you will not find point of attack anywhere in the rulebook as it relates to this call, but that is the philosophy that I hold and have held for years.

Peace

[iceman70]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You can look for all the scenarios that you like. I stand by what I said and how I am going to call this. If you cannot tell the difference in the statement above, this is something you will have to deal with.

I do know that last year (or a couple of years ago) there was a call made in a state final where I live that someone called helping the runner and took the rulebook so literally. The call was widely questioned even thought the language could have been technically right.

Peace

JRutledge,

I can tell the difference between both statements. The first one indicates that the throwing of the helmet is what makes it illegal. In the second, it is only illegal if it makes contact.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by iceman70

JRutledge,

I can tell the difference between both statements. The first one indicates that the throwing of the helmet is what makes it illegal. In the second, it is only illegal if it makes contact.

OK, find me the NF ruling that says how to apply the rule?

I am waiting.

Peace

[iceman70]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

OK, find me the NF ruling that says how to apply the rule?

I am waiting.

Peace

If a player throws his helmet at another player, who needs specific instructions from the NF? It is possible to overanalyze nearly every rule.