Slapping the Snap

[bigjohn]

Well, Walt, I was told to find rule coverage and I believe I have. Personally I think it falls under Unfair act and is not football so it is a travesty of the game.


Football plays must start with a legal snap, that is the rule, B should not be able to impede this!

[rngrck]

Hey guys, this type of action on B is bush!! I've never seen this and don't expect I ever will except for in a game of rugby!! And even if I did, I sure would have a conversation with the offending coach.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by rngrck

Hey guys, this type of action on B is bush!! I've never seen this and don't expect I ever will except for in a game of rugby!! And even if I did, I sure would have a conversation with the offending coach.

What would you tell the coach? That you don't like something he is doing even though it is permitted by rule?

John, if RR belived that this was USC, he would've said so. He doesn't even seem to believe that by rule, this act is illegal. What he is saying is the same as ajmc is saying, from a practical matter it is going to be very difficult for B to properly time the swat. This act is possible to execute legally...not probable but it is possible!

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Here is a play from Redding's NFHS Football Rules. "

Example 3-19 After the ready, all Team A players are set. As A53 snaps the ball, B72 reaches in and knocks the ball away. RULING: The umpire must decide whether the snap was illegal or B72 encroached.

It is highly unlikely the preceding example could occur without a foul. In practicality, for a defensive player to knock the ball away, either the snapper would have to hesitate after lifting the ball making the snap illegal and thus allowing the opponent enough time to touch the ball, or the Team B player would have to put his hand into the neutral zone before the snap."

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Well, Walt, I was told to find rule coverage and I believe I have. Personally I think it falls under Unfair act and is not football so it is a travesty of the game.


Football plays must start with a legal snap, that is the rule, B should not be able to impede this!

John, Redding's interpretation is qualified by saying 'highly unlikely'. This is hardly a definitive ruling. I don't disagree with the Redding interpretation, I'm just saying it's possible. If I see B encroach I'll call it. But it's not automatic.

[bigjohn]

Point is it is BUSH LEAGUE and should be called USC. Redding says that in the hopes of discouraging it but if I gave him my case play and false start scenario I bet he would agree with me. Even if he didn't I still think that B trying to prevent a legal snap is a disconcerting act and batting is intentional so it is intentional act by B to cause a snap infraction which is a false start and that is a USC according to 9-5-1d!

[kdf5]

Bigjohn you remind me of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. His opponent kept lopping off body parts and yet he wouldn't surrender no matter how badly he was losing.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by kdf5

Bigjohn you remind me of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. His opponent kept lopping off body parts and yet he wouldn't surrender no matter how badly he was losing.

It's just a flesh wound.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by waltjp

John, Redding's interpretation is qualified by saying 'highly unlikely'. This is hardly a definitive ruling. I don't disagree with the Redding interpretation, I'm just saying it's possible. If I see B encroach I'll call it. But it's not automatic.

The snap was required to be "quick and continuous" in the hope that plays like this would not be part of the game, but I certainly wouldn't consider it anything like USC, let alone a "travesty of the game", if A1 were to move the ball slowly enough to still be considered "quick" yet allow B1 to contact it without encroaching. I could see B1 stealing A's signal and possibly having much faster arm movement than A1. It's not like a free pass in informal basketball.

Robert