Thoughts of officals on the A11 offense.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

We had one school a few years ago that tried exploiting the "roughing the snapper" rule on a crucial play by lining the QB 7 yards deep at the snap. No flag.

I told him he'd better protect himself because it appeared to me the QB was only 6.5 yards deep.

What was the roughing the snapper rule adopted for? It's for the snapper, isn't it? Then why do you care whether the player getting the snap was a kicker or passer? The effect on the snapper is the same.

Robert

[Mike L]

Because, per rule there cannot be roughing the snapper unless the offense is in a scrimmage kick formation. And you can't be in a scrimmage kick formation unless someone is in position to receive a snap who is at least 7 yds behind the LOS.
But, if the rule is ignored because they are attempting to pass out of the formation rather than kick, I agree we have a problem.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Because, per rule there cannot be roughing the snapper unless the offense is in a scrimmage kick formation. And you can't be in a scrimmage kick formation unless someone is in position to receive a snap who is at least 7 yds behind the LOS.

But, if the rule is ignored because they are attempting to pass out of the formation rather than kick, I agree we have a problem.

What do you mean, "if the rule is ignored"? "Scrimmage kick formation" is a technical term with a specific definition; it has nothing to do with whether a kick is imminent. Roughing the snapper was put in the rules a few years ago because of the position & action of the snapper when snapping the ball deep, which is the same regardless of whether it's a run, pass, or kick play.

Robert

[Mike L]

And that's what "if the rule is ignored" means. It's the formation that matters, not what they do out of it. Which was sorta the implication of the other poster. Thereby generating, "the problem" comment.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

What do you mean, "if the rule is ignored"? "Scrimmage kick formation" is a technical term with a specific definition; it has nothing to do with whether a kick is imminent. Roughing the snapper was put in the rules a few years ago because of the position & action of the snapper when snapping the ball deep, which is the same regardless of whether it's a run, pass, or kick play.

Robert

It's analogous to the A11 exploitation of the formation/numbering exception rules. It's called "scrimmage kick formation" rather than "long snap formation" for a reason, after all.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

It's analogous to the A11 exploitation of the formation/numbering exception rules. It's called "scrimmage kick formation" rather than "long snap formation" for a reason, after all.

The same reason NCAA & NFL rules now reference "normal tackle position" -- they needed a name to describe common practice. But they did it without any thought of requiring a team to snapping from "scrimmage kick formation" to kick.

Robert

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

What was the roughing the snapper rule adopted for? It's for the snapper, isn't it? Then why do you care whether the player getting the snap was a kicker or passer? The effect on the snapper is the same.

Robert

It's an end run around a rule just as the A-11 is an end run around the numbering exception. The protection is only for a scrimmage kick formation. Running every play out of that formation to avoid having a defender able to shoot up the middle is ludicrous.

If the guy is clearly 7+ yards deep (quick glance, obvious), I'll enforce it, but if it's borderline, I'm not going to penalize it.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

It's an end run around a rule just as the A-11 is an end run around the numbering exception. The protection is only for a scrimmage kick formation. Running every play out of that formation to avoid having a defender able to shoot up the middle is ludicrous.

First of all, there's nothing about it that prevents a defender's shooting up the middle. He just can't hit the snapper on the way.

But second, did it ever occur to you that there could be other reasons to line up in that formation? And that when the snapper does snap the ball deep, it doesn't matter in terms of his exposure what type of play it's going to be?

If the guy is clearly 7+ yards deep (quick glance, obvious), I'll enforce it, but if it's borderline, I'm not going to penalize it.

Nothing wrong with benefit of the doubt. But it seems like where you should be giving the benefit of the doubt to the defense is in cases where incidental contact with the snapper occurs as a defender tries to shoot by him (or when the contact is more than incidental but results from being deflected into the snapper by an adjacent lineman's block), in cases where the ball is snapped to a "short" man and the defense reacts to a threat in the middle in a way that involves the snapper.

Robert

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

First of all, there's nothing about it that prevents a defender's shooting up the middle. He just can't hit the snapper on the way.

But second, did it ever occur to you that there could be other reasons to line up in that formation? And that when the snapper does snap the ball deep, it doesn't matter in terms of his exposure what type of play it's going to be?

I certainly do understand this.

However, I also have seen teams trying to get a cheap automatic first down by exploiting this rule. QB backs up a bit deeper than usual (about 7 yds instead of the usual shotgun 5) and then want the auto first down when the center is blocked. It's not about safety for them -- those coaches WANT the center to get drilled so they can go from 3rd and long to 1st and 10. And I'm not playing that game. In my judgment in those situations, it's just short of seven, coach, sorry.

I've only seen it 3-4 times since Roughing the Snapper was put into the rules, but each time the emphasis wasn't on safety, it was an attempted "gotcha" moment.

[KurtBryan]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I certainly do understand this.

However, I also have seen teams trying to get a cheap automatic first down by exploiting this rule. QB backs up a bit deeper than usual (about 7 yds instead of the usual shotgun 5) and then want the auto first down when the center is blocked. It's not about safety for them -- those coaches WANT the center to get drilled so they can go from 3rd and long to 1st and 10. And I'm not playing that game. In my judgment in those situations, it's just short of seven, coach, sorry.

I've only seen it 3-4 times since Roughing the Snapper was put into the rules, but each time the emphasis wasn't on safety, it was an attempted "gotcha" moment.

Rich, interesting take too. We have now played 14 games in the A-11, and have not received one roughing the snapper call vs. the other team's defense. Going into the games, we HOPE our Center does not get cheap shotted or accidentally hurt due to roughing.

The opposing coaches know the rules, and I have not seen anybody get penalized for it, which is a good thing.

KB

[Mike L]

I gotta wonder why any "big business" types would be interested in this at all. NCAA, this offense is dead. NFL, this offense is dead. Attempts to compete with the NFL, fail every time. What business opportunities are there in HS ball outside of maybe Texas?
Let's face the facts, this is nothing more than taking advantage of a rule exception that maybe allows a school with a small student base to compete against a bigger school. That's it, despite the attempts at all the crap hyping it as "more fun", "officials love/endorse it", "innovation", "future of the game".

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Attempts to compete with the NFL, fail every time.

Not every time. There was the AFL.

[Murd]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I certainly do understand this.

However, I also have seen teams trying to get a cheap automatic first down by exploiting this rule. QB backs up a bit deeper than usual (about 7 yds instead of the usual shotgun 5) and then want the auto first down when the center is blocked. It's not about safety for them -- those coaches WANT the center to get drilled so they can go from 3rd and long to 1st and 10. And I'm not playing that game. In my judgment in those situations, it's just short of seven, coach, sorry.

I've only seen it 3-4 times since Roughing the Snapper was put into the rules, but each time the emphasis wasn't on safety, it was an attempted "gotcha" moment.

So you interpet the rules the way you think they should be interpeted? Nice.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Murd

So you interpet the rules the way you think they should be interpeted? Nice.

Yup. Sue me.

Same as when I tell an end to back up a step and when I don't penalize every little flinch. It's called "judgment" or "understanding the spirit of the rule."

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I certainly do understand this.

However, I also have seen teams trying to get a cheap automatic first down by exploiting this rule. QB backs up a bit deeper than usual (about 7 yds instead of the usual shotgun 5) and then want the auto first down when the center is blocked. It's not about safety for them -- those coaches WANT the center to get drilled so they can go from 3rd and long to 1st and 10.

Then there should be some way for the officials to signal pre-snap to the other team that it's a scrimmage kick formation.

Of course I blame the rules makers at NCAA & Fed for this. I wrote about this a while ago at rec.sport.officiating, not sure about here. The rule should not reference the formation, but rather the position of the snapper's head.

BTW, there are some leagues for players below a certain age that require the snapper to snap with head up. I'm pretty sure they're the same ones that don't have normal live scrimmage kick plays.

Robert