Slapping the Snap
 

I say slapping at the snap by the NG is USC, anyone agree?





SITUATION 10: On third and 10 from A's 40-yard line, all team A players are set. While quarterback A1 is calling signals, defensive back B1, starting from a position eight yards behind his line of scrimmage, runs toward the neutral zone. B1 stops directly in front of tackle A4 but does not enter the neutral zone. In response to B1's charge, A4 (a) does not move, or (b) flinches.
_______________________________________________


RULING: No foul in (a). In (b), A4 is guilty of a dead-ball foul for false start. If in the official's judgment the action by B1 was for the purpose of disconcerting or hindering A, it is an unsportsmanlike conduct foul. In this case, the official should sound his whistle before the snap. (7-1-7; 9-5-1d)

John, you're stuck on this point. The case play you post does not address the legality of the B slapping the ball away after the snap begins. If B does not cross the neutral zone until the snap begins there is no foul.

You can debate all day as to whether the nose guard is fast enough to pull this off legally but that doesn't change the fact that the action, if done properly, is legal.

slapping the snap causes a snap infraction, no? That is false start. It is a disconcerting action that causes A to false start so it should be USC!

B is guilty is something, I think 5 yards for either delay or Encroching.

You can't be serious with this answer. What did B do that was illegal?

I had this earlier this year when I was working HL. I called it encroachment because he came across early. I don't think it is possible to hit the ball without coming across early.

A scrimmage down must start with a legal snap. An illegal
snap causes the ball to remain dead.


The call for snap infraction is false start. Disconcerting acts by B that cause a false start are USC according to 9-5-1d

John, have you considered becoming a radio pundit? Saying something over and over doesn't make it true.

It may be humanly possible for a defensive player to be so quick, or time an attempt so perfectly that he could reach a snap after it has started, without encroaching, but 999 times out of 1,000 the correct call is encroachment.

Personally, I'm not looking for that 1 super human effort, and rather than motivate any player to be that 1 in a 1,000, I consider any successful slap of a snap a foul for encroachment.

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."

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!

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!

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.

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!