Legal?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by With_Two_Flakes

The more I watch it, the more it looks like he puts a hand on a teammates shoulder and also steps onto the snappers back (there is a little stutter step as he goes over the snapper).

So if this was an NCAA Rules game.
It looks like he puts his hand on a teammates shoulder to get a little extra leverage? Can't do that: 9-3-5-b-2
It looks like possibly one of his feet is on the snapper's back as he jumps over?
9-1-2-q says "no player may step, jump or stand on an opponent. No defensive player.........may land on any player(s)."
9-1-2-r says " a defensive player may not initiate contact with the snapper until one second..." A foot on his back sounds like contact to me.


If this is a NFHS game.
9-4-3-e "No player shall position himself on the shoulders or body of a teammate or opponent to gain an advantage."
Exclusively NCAA Rules here in Europe so I only get to work Fed Rules on occasional trips to the USA. Could / should 9-4-3-e be interpreted to cover what the kid does on this film?

It should not. The rules on pyramiding and related height-gaining forms of contact have been worked over in the past few decades by the 3 major USAn codes (probably the Canadian ones too) in full cognizance of each other's efforts, and the differences in wording can be presumed to be deliberate. "Position himself" means exactly that, and does not refer to leveraging oneself upward momentarily during play.

Robert

[waltjp]

Hard to tell if the defender contacted the snapper on his way over him but at the very least we have a flag for hurdling.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Then why did you write that he had at least his feet on the ground? That was irrelevant.

Because if the snapper's feet are on the ground, he is not lying on the ground or in the air; therefore, the player is hurdling.

You cannot be on the ground or in the air if your feet are on the ground which is extremely relevant when determining if a player has been hurdled.

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by Welpe

There isn't a prohibition against "leveraging" in NFHS rules. It isn't even defined in NFHS rules.

The B player may have put his foot on the back of the snapper, but I'm not really sure that he did. If he did, I agree with Ed on ruling roughing the snapper. It appears the snapper doesn't have a hand on the ground when he is hurdled, therefore I believe we have a hurdling foul if the team B player doesn't make contact with the snapper.

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe in NFHS rules, hurdling is the only personal foul that does not require contact for there to be a foul.

I was referring to 9-4-3e

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Because if the snapper's feet are on the ground, he is not lying on the ground or in the air; therefore, the player is hurdling.

You cannot be on the ground or in the air if your feet are on the ground

You must be kidding. Unless you're doing a handstand or on your back with your feet in the air or something else "pathologic", you're guaranteed to have a foot on the ground if "you" are "on the ground". Hence the criterion in the definition that the feet be the only body parts on the ground.

Robert

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by bossman72

I was referring to 9-4-3e

Gotcha...two things:

1) To avoid confusion, make sure you use precise rule book terminology and definitions when discussing plays

and;

2) Violation of 9-4-3e is a personal foul, not unsportsmanlike conduct.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

You must be kidding. Unless you're doing a handstand or on your back with your feet in the air or something else "pathologic", you're guaranteed to have a foot on the ground if "you" are "on the ground". Hence the criterion in the definition that the feet be the only body parts on the ground.

Robert

Robert, I find it incomprehensible a man of your intelligence cannot comprehend such a simple statement.

A foot on the ground means standing upright on the ground. I did not mean a foot on the ground would be such that the heel is touching the ground or you are lying on your side such that a foot or both feet touch the ground on their sides. I truly meant standing upright with the entire sole of the shoe touching the ground.

If you still have a problem I will be happy to post a picture of "feet on the ground."

[Mike L]

I hate to say it, but I think I got nothing.
It appears the snapper has either one or both hands on the ground. That means he can be hurdled. It also appears the defender jumped over the gap between the snapper and the guard. Even if there was slight contact with the snapper, I can't see how you can call roughing as "a defender shall not charge directly into the snapper", which I don't see here at all. Also, it appears the defender may use a hand on his teammate's shoulder to help propel himself up and over. I think trying to use the "no player shall position himself on the shoulders or body of a teammate" rule is a stretch.
Bottom line for me, somebody should teach the snapper his job is not to duck so low out of the way after the snap that somebody could pull this off.

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Gotcha...two things:

1) To avoid confusion, make sure you use precise rule book terminology and definitions when discussing plays

and;

2) Violation of 9-4-3e is a personal foul, not unsportsmanlike conduct.

Thanks! I'm new to football, so cut me a little slack

Good catch on the PF vs UNS

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

YouTube - Greatest Blocked Kick Ever!

CANADIAN RULING:

Legal.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by bossman72

Thanks! I'm new to football, so cut me a little slack

Understood. I have only been doing this a couple of years myself and still have much to learn but I know you and I are both a experienced baseball umpires so I'm going to give you a bit of a hard time over using proper definitions.

Have fun, working football is a blast!

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Robert, I find it incomprehensible a man of your intelligence cannot comprehend such a simple statement.

A foot on the ground means standing upright on the ground. I did not mean a foot on the ground would be such that the heel is touching the ground or you are lying on your side such that a foot or both feet touch the ground on their sides. I truly meant standing upright with the entire sole of the shoe touching the ground.

If you still have a problem I will be happy to post a picture of "feet on the ground."

The important point is what meaning it has in the rules. I'm sure they mean it to have its literal meaning. If they wanted to say "upright" or "erect" -- as indeed the rules formerly did without clarif'n -- they wouldn't've clarified by adding the detail about no other part of the body touching the ground.

But in determining whether hurdling has occurred, as long as some other part of the surmounted player was touching the ground, it doesn't matter whether any part of either foot was also touching the ground.

Robert

[bigjohn]

I think he stepped on the snappers back.

9-4-3e

e. Position himself on the shoulders or body of a teammate or opponent to
gain an advantage.

[gtwbam]

BigJohn.
For what its worth, I believe your right on the money with this call.

[bigjohn]

2009 casebook

ADVANTAGE GAINED ILLEGALLY
9.4.3 SITUATION E: (a) End A1 goes 5 yards downfield and stops. Wide receiver
A2 jumps on his back and catches a pass; or (b) B1 steps on the back of snapper
A1 immediately after the snap as he propels himself into the air to block a
punt; or (c) B1 jumps on B2’s shoulders in an effort to block a field-goal attempt.
RULING: A personal foul in (a), (b) and (c). In all cases, an advantage has been
gained illegally.