Fighting. 9-4-1.

It appears it is a try therefore the play was being blown dead. However at the very end of the play, the R could have gotten #3 for a BIB, or a personal foul since the whistle may have sounded.

It certainly looks like a hurdle to me.

Since I can't see the video, I have to ask whether the player who blocked the kick appeared to propel himself into the air off the snapper's back (using the contact to gain or maintain altitude), or stepped on his back in an effort to get past him. The first would fit case (b) above, but the second would not be any of those cases. In other words, was the snapper's presence an advantage to the defender, or would he have been just as well (or better) off to have been able to plant that foot on the ground?

Robert

I'm with Big John too.

Thanks for that Robert. Hadn't even considered the human pyramid situation. We've only had football over here in the UK for 25 years, so that has never been an issue.

I only watched it once.

If the hand is on the ground, it's not hurdling. Lots of twisted logic above in this thread, but "only" means "only". If the hand is on the ground then "only the feet" is not true.

It looks like the guy stepped on the back on the snapper, which should be RTS. Half the distance and retry.

I see it the second way. He came off the back and never used the step to gain an advantage other than a quick way through the line play.

ART. 6 . . . Roughing the snapper. A defensive player shall not charge directly
into the snapper when the offensive team is in a scrimmage-kick formation.


No way it is roughing the snapper!

If BAFRA's been using NCAA rules for that long, then you might've started when they outlawed only standing on teammates' shoulders and said that other forms of pyramid formation were still legal. It was strange to have a passage in the rules that said something was legal (rather than just an exception to something illegal), but that extraordinary language was in there at least as late as 1983.

Anyway, the human pyramid to block kicks used to be a common tactic in American and Canadian football. I think the original reason for outlawing it might've been safety, considering what happens when the pyramid falls, there being no prohibition on knocking out its props. So now they leave that to the cheerleaders on the hard surface off the field. But I think the competitive cheerleading rulesmakers now limit human pyramids to 3 levels.

On the other other hand, lifting in the lineout used to be illegal in rugby, and now you can hurl players into the air to play the ball.

Robert

That's what I'd been writing, but somebody in the thread was making my head spin when he wrote otherwise, and then was ostensibly backed up by others who actually contradicted him but didn't acknowledge so!

I don't see how that's roughing the snapper any more than by a rusher who in trying to penetrate the A gap makes incidental contact with the snapper. Or even more than incidental, if it's an attempt to get around him rather than to run thru him or shake him up, as implied by Fed's "charge directly into" wording.

Robert

I don't have hurdling. The snapper had at least one hand on the ground and possibly both. That excludes this action from the rule.

I also did not see any contact between the jumper's foot and the snapper. There may have possibly been a touch but the jumper did not gain elevation at or after the contact and the snapper was not forced down toward the ground at the same instant. If you stepped on someone there would be a visible result of that contact and I saw none. I think this was more of a "Michael Jordan" move where the foot paused in mid-air while the body passed over it.

This type of block doesn't work that often as it is very difficult to time it up that well and the jumper is quite vulnerable in the air.

I'm really ambivalent about flagging this for RTS, but I'm also looking at the spirit and intent of the rule.

The snapper is protected because he's not in a position to protect himself. If a 200+ pound linebacker is stepping in the middle of his back, isn't this something we should be protecting the snapper from?

I understand why this wasn't flagged, though. From the video, it's hard to tell if he just went clean over the top or not. And if it was clean, it was *not* hurdling as the snapper's hand was on the ground. We agree on that.

I think if you see this live you should call it hurdling though based on the intent of the hurdling rule. The only reason the snappers hand is on the ground is to steady himself as someone is stepping on his back!

I'll call this hurdling every time I see it.

Maybe, but I don't think that was the intent of the RTS provision. It was installed to counter the intimidation factor of teams that would sacrifice some of their rush just to make the snapper think he has to protect himself against something he can't see, and therefore he'll hurry the snap, or snap with his head up or raising it too soon, and not have good form. Since being stepped on the back of was never part of that intimidation factor, it would take a separate rule to outlaw. Even if the snapper had his head up, there's nothing he could do about being stepped on, so the threat of it wouldn't mess up his form. A rusher who timed the snap perfectly could do the same even to a snapper in regular formation -- or for that matter any other OL in 3- or 4-pt.

Seems to outlaw this danger the simplest thing would be to amend the definition of hurdling to include a snapper who hadn't had time to get out of a 3- or 4-pt. stance. But then why just the snapper?

Robert