And further we go down the rabbit hole....

Yes, the penalty is the same but it is a different foul.

ART. 7 . . . After the ball is marked ready for play and before the snap begins,
no false start shall be made by any A player. It is a false start if:
a. A shift or feigned charge simulates action at the snap.
b. Any act is clearly intended to cause B to encroach.
c. Any A player on his line between the snapper and the player on the end of
his line, after having placed a hand(s) on or near the ground, moves his
hand(s) or makes any quick movement.

I don't see snap infraction listed as a reason for a false start.

This is a snap infraction:

ART. 2 . . . The snapper may lift the ball for lateral rotation but may not rotate
end-for-end or change the location or fail to keep the long axis of the ball at right
angles to the line of scrimmage.
ART. 3 . . . Following the ready-for-play and after touching the ball, the snapper
shall not:
a. Remove both hands from the ball.
b. Make any movement that simulates a snap.
c. Fail to clearly pause before the snap.
d. Following adjustment, lift or move the ball other than in a legal snap.

Those things can all cause B to encroach so they are false starts as well as snap infractions. Same thing. Same penalty same signal!

Point is if B hinders the snap or causes a false start it is USC.
Using 9-5-1d as rule.

Man, I quoted you what is a false start and what is a snap infraction. What is so difficult about this. 2 fouls having the same penalty or the same signal do not mean they are the same foul.

Here is a list of fouls which use signal #19.

5. Free-kick infraction........................................ .................................................. .......................6-1-2 7-19
7. Free kick out of bounds............................................ .................................................. ............6-1-8 19
9. Snap infraction .................................................. .................................................. ...............7-1-2, 3 7-19
10. False Start .................................................. .................................................. ..........................7-1-7 7-19
11. Illegal formation .................................................. .................................................. .........7-2-1, 2, 3 19
12. Less than seven players on A’s line or numbering violation......................................... ..........7-2-5 19
14. Planned loose-ball infraction........................................ .................................................. ........7-2-8 19
25. Attendant illegally on field .................................................. .................................................. ..9-8-2 19

OK.

7-1 all deal with before the snap and use signal 19. My point is they are all things the can be affected by 9-5-1d. Hindered action at the snap. If you want me to say that a snap infraction is not a false start, I can, but we all know that there is virtually no difference. Both are dead ball fouls that can be caused by B if they use disconcerting acts or words!
if the snapper flinches that is a snap infraction but also a false start. If someone is swiping at the ball in an attempt to slap it out of the center's hand, THAT is a disconcerting act!


d. Using disconcerting acts or words prior to the snap in an attempt to
interfere with A’s signals or movements.

Why on earth would you error on the side of 1% chance of this happening?
A snap is not going to be so slow that a defender could not encroach and hit the ball during the snap. If it is then by rule it is illegal. Rule 2.39.2 says quick and continuous. I guess we have different philosophies on how the game should be played and what we should and should not be calling. I do not look for that one in a lifetime occurrence on the field, I look for the spirit of the rules and the integrity of good sportsmanship. Slapping the snap is BS and needs to be called.

So go ahead and call it USC, SON!

I have seen this attempted three times in my career. I was on the side each time. Each time, the defensive lineman's hand entered the neutral zone prior to the snap beginning. Each time encroachment was called.

A defender would not have to be just a little quicker, he'd have to be a hell of lot quicker to make this work. Remember, he has to reach across the neutral zone first and catch up to an object already being moved away from him quickly.

But he doesn't have to catch up much. His hand could be a millimeter from the neutral zone to start with. Or, if he picked up some tell by the snapper, his hand could already be moving, timed to enter the NZ just at the snap, while the ball is still stationary.

Am I correct that NCAA's requirements for completing the snap are different from Fed's? ISTR the snap in NCAA as only having to completely transit the plane of the snapper's waist. If that's so, then that's their saving grace that allows their "ball is snapped" in this case to mean the snap was completed, while Fed's means the snap has begun.

I really think Fed didn't contemplate this situation. If they had, they might've adopted NCAA's solution, or might've altered the requirement of a legal snap to relieve A of any foul when contact by B occurred in this manner.

Just a thought: once the requirement of completing a snap was adopted, Fed could just as well have eliminated the requirement that the snap be quick & continuous, because if it's not, B would produce the illegal-snap-by-A situation as described herein. But maybe not. The snapper might have ways of picking up the ball and quickly turning to protect it, like setting a maul except that players of A couldn't bind on. Or the snapper could pick the ball up while charging ahead and delaying letting go of it. Meanwhile the lines would "dissolve" and it would become unclear whether the first player to touch the snapped ball was in the backfield at the time.

Robert

My philosophy is - call a foul when you see it. Don't assume.

If you'd rather call fouls according to your gut then by all means, go ahead.

When you have to reach that far to try to defend your argument, you've lost.

So the snapper walking up to the ball and spinning it end to end or moving it forward can be caused by what B says? I don't think so.

A snap infraction is a snap infraction, not a false start. I quoted the rule book earlier and explained what each one was. Yes, there can be a situation where the snapper makes a movement which could be considered a snap infraction or false start, but that does not mean that snap infraction is the same as a false start.

But the question still remains, can B cause a snap infraction?

B can cause a false start, that is in a case play and the same case play say any act that hinders movement at the snap is USC. So if I concede on your point why can't you concede mine?

You don't even remember what your original point was. You said "slapping the snap causes a snap infraction, no? That is false start." That is completly false. A false start and snap infraction is not the same thing.

I believe that no one has argued that B could cause a snap infraction; I don't know what you are talking about.