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!

No

John, the unfair acts rule is not a catch-all for the "That don't look right" football play.

This is part of the Rule 2 definition of a rule:

This is from an earlier post of mine it is not exactly the same topic but the idea is the same:

Bush League does not equal illegal...this is true in most sports, not just football.

By BUSH LEAGUE I mean unsporting! Notice it says examples but not limited to!

ART. 1 . . . No player shall act in an unsportsmanlike manner once the officials
assume authority for the contest. Examples are, but not limited to:
a. Baiting or taunting acts or words or insignia worn which engenders ill will.
NOTE: The NFHS disapproves of any form of taunting which is intended or designed
to embarrass, ridicule or demean others under any circumstances including on the
basis of race, religion, gender or national origin.
b. Using profanity, insulting or vulgar language or gestures.
c. Any delayed, excessive or prolonged act by which a player attempts to
focus attention upon himself.
d. Using disconcerting acts or words prior to the snap in an attempt to
interfere with A’s signals or movements.
e. Kicking at the ball, other than during a legal kick.
f. Leaving the field between downs to gain an advantage unless replaced or
unless with permission of an official.
g. Refusing to comply with an official’s request.
h. Using tobacco or smokeless tobacco.
ART. 2 . . . When the ball becomes dead in possession of a player, he shall not:
a. Intentionally kick the ball.
b. Spike the ball into the ground.
c. Throw the ball high into the air or from the field of play or end zone.
d. Intentionally fail to place the ball on the ground or immediately return it to
a nearby official.

Good luck getting anybody to enforce it that way.

John,
RR has made his pronouncement because he knows what the definition of a snap is. I suggest you review that.

I have.

NFHS Forum: Defense slapping at the snap

You're really going to put the opinions of a bunch of unknowns up over Redding? I mean really?????
And explain just how someone has the reactions that are fast enough to slap the snap if it is done with the required quick and continuous backward motion. Plain and simple, they don't.

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

The slapping at the ball takes place before the snap and it is an attempt to interfere with A's movement, Cut and Dried USC!!!

Go with that then. And good luck to you.

John the sky is not blue.
John the sky is not blue.
John the sky is not blue.
John the sky is not blue.
John the sky is not blue.

Just because I keep saying it, doesn't make it true.

I looked out my window last night at 10:30pm, the sky was black!

I think we've got an honest to goodness contrarian on our hands here. :D

Glad you saw the humor in those posts Welpe! :)

Umpires: Would your angle make it difficult for you to determine this?

A wing's distance (and the fact that we're sometimes screened by the end on our side) might make it difficult for us as well. Don't know.

I do agree that it would be, if not a one in a million, certainly a one in a thousand chance that you'd be able to do this and not encroach. Unless we get high-speed ump-cams and the ability to replay everything, I would think it's unlikely you'd be able to tell, so I'd say you would probably be fairly safe with an encroachment call.

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.

What is human reaction time? The center is the person snapping and he knows when the snap is going to occur. No way the defender could time this perfectly to beat a center who is snapping the ball.

We'll call it a draw!

YouTube - Monty Python And The Holy Grail- The Black Knight

Maybe it's me, but I still don't see you citing a rule.

A snap infraction is a false start? :confused: I think you might want to learn some definitions.

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

We play NCAA Rules over here in the UK and have no problems since NCAA Rules and AR's are quite specific on this point. Firstly NCAA Rules have a Section about Defensive Team Requirements (7-1-5) and a specific AR 7-1-5-II that addresses this exact issue.

Snapper A1 legally begins the snap, but B2 bats the ball before A1 completes the snap, and B3 recovers the ball.
RULING: Team B foul and the ball is dead.
Penalty -- Five yards from the succeeding spot. Team B may not touch the ball until it has been snapped. Team A retains possession.

I'm not quite so familiar with Fed rules as I only get to work them a couple of times every 3 or 4 years when I travel to the US. Fed rules lack a specific section for defensive requirements, but perhaps this is because the Fed Rules Ctte. feel there is adequate existing coverage in 7-1-5 already.

However, Rule 7 Section 1 BEFORE THE SNAP Article 5 says no player except the snapper shall encroach on the neutral zone. That includes the defence. I would think it reasonable and appropriate to interpret "before the snap" to mean "before the end of the snap".
The end of the snap is defined in 2-40-3 as "when the ball touches the ground or any player". Therefore I would maintain that it cannot be legally possible for a defensive player to put his hand across to touch the ball before the snap is completed since he will have encroached.

You better rethink that or are you not going to allow the defense to penetrate the neutral zone until the QB in shotgun formation touches the ball?
It's really pretty simple, if the snap is done correctly it is not possible for the defense to slap the ball out of the snappers hand. Therefore, you must either have a snap infraction because the snap was not done properly or you have encroachment because the defense was in the zone prior to the snap.

Snap infraction is false start!

PENALTY: Encroachment (Arts. 1, 5, 6) – (S7-18); snap infraction (Arts. 2, 3);
false start (Art. 7) – (S7-19) – 5 yards.

John those are different fouls referencing different articles of that rule.

Same signal for snap infraction and false start, same penalty.

What is the signal for snap infraction?

If B slaps the ball during the snap, then he encroched. It's kinetics.

John, you do know that a snap infraction is a foul on the offense, right?

Still haven't found a rule citation, I see.

It's kinetics???

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Sure.

Same signal for helping runner and interlocked blocking, different penalty.

If you look on the signal chart, signal 44 states both of those infractions. Signal 19 says false start or illegal formation.

http://i38.tinypic.com/iyzoqx.jpg

2-8.

You know, the physics of movement states that if the snap by A and B player move at the same speed, B would have to start his movement and therefore encroch prior to the snap if he would touch the ball prior to team A's back. Reaction time and accelration by both A & B also needs to be considered.

F = Ma

You missed my point.

You say that false start and snap infraction are the same thing because they have the same signal and same penalty. They're not.

Signal 44 is for both helping the runner and interlocking blocking, only they're not the same thing (despite having the same signal) and they carry different penalties.

You're wrong to say that a false start and a snap infraction are the same thing because they have the same signal and therefore the same penalty. Snap infraction is not false start.

dead ball signal 19

I did not miss the point I showed you that signal 44 could be for either of those fouls just like signal 19 can be for false start or illegal formation.

Just like signal 27 can be for USC or noncontact foul.
Those signals that mean more than one thing are labeled as such on the signals pages.

A snap infraction is always a dead ball and an 5 yard penalty on A for false start.
The snap infraction caused B it encroach, thus it was false start I guess.

If B causes the snap infraction, I say it is USC under 9-5-1d the act of slapping the ball begins prior to the snap and hinders the ACTIONS of A


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

I don't understand why you'd base your argument A and B moving at the same speed. That's rarely, if ever, the case. I'll concede that if A and B are moving at the rate of acceleration and reach the same top end speed there is no way for B to contact the ball without having previously encroached.

However, if B's reaction time is less than the time gap generated by the difference in acceleration and the resulting velocity between A and B (when B is accelerating faster to a higher velocity) it is absolutely possible for B to touch the ball before it touches a back.

and that makes it an illegal snap ie snap infraction! Who caused it? B Why, Disconcerting act that is uncalled for and USC!

You are correct that a snap enfraction is always a dead ball foul and 5 yard penalty for A but the foul is "snap enfraction" not "false start". These are two different penalties. I agree if that d-lineman hits the ball before the snapper moves it, then you could have an USC. But if he gets it while the ball is moving (so unlikely), you credit the defense for being lightening quick. I think everyone else on this board has showed you they disagree with your interpretation. A phrase I've learned is "don't be a pioneer". That is exactly what you are doing here. Good luck if you ever see it this way and call it but I don't think you'll have much support.

Possible, but not probable, and I am not going to give the benefit of the doubt to B for trying to slap the snap.

RULE 2 SECTION 8 ENCROACHMENT
Encroachment occurs when a player is illegally in the neutral zone during the time interval starting when the ball is marked ready for play and until the ball is snapped or free kicked. For the purposes of enforcing encroachment Restrictions, an entering substitute is not considered to be a player until he is on his team’s side of the neutral zone.

Team A is set. The snapper snaps the ball. After the ball begins to move the nose guard, B60, slaps the ball out of the snapper's hand. Where was the encroachment?

In other words, you're going to make up your own rule. :rolleyes:

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.

So you agree that 9-5-1d makes slapping at the snap a USC?


I agree with you!
Let me restate that a snap infraction is like a false start. It is prior to the snap and causes the ball to remain dead.

All plays must begin with a legal snap and for B to hinder that by ACTS or words is USC!

I thought you were the one reaching far with that physics argument.

But by your interpretation, if team A wants to snap the ball a long way sideways to a back at some distance (as is commonly done in some quick plays), players of B would not be allowed to intercept the snap.

Robert

No, 9-5-1d is about disconcerting. It is illegal for B to disconcert A. Hindering is not illegal.

This shouldn't be too big of a discussion. In NCAA it is illegal. In Federation there is a good chance B encroached but if not it is legal.

The most insightful comment of the thread. It's just a shame that it had to wait until post #79. :cool:

I have a case play that says you are wrong.

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)

And how does any of that have anything to do with slapping at the snap?

Interestingly enough, we played a team Friday night whose Nose Guard kept trying to do this exact thing - on every snap he was trying to slap the ball as our Center snapped it...I told our Center that if he ever snapped it slowly enough for the guy to actually get a hand on it, he would be standing next to me the remainder of the game. The Nose never even came close, but he was persistent. Needless to say, we ran up the middle a LOT because the Nose was always off balance from swinging his arm around like that.:p