Legal?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

A snapper should be coming up to block and defend himself as soon as the snap is away. He has some time to defend himself but only enough to actually defend himself.

The rule protects the snapper because he is vulnerable. I think this fits within the spirt of roughing the snapper.

[svm1010]

Becareful with an RTS call.

There is a big difference between a hurdling call (15 yards) and a RTS call (15 Yards + Automatic 1st down)

to summarize:
Hurdling = going over
RTS = Charging into.

[Welpe]

I understand the difference. I'm not talking about hurdling per se, I'm talking about putting a player putting a foot and his weight on the back of a vulnerable snapper.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by svm1010

to summarize:
Hurdling = going over
RTS = Charging into.

There's an easier way to distinguish:

hurdling: no touching
RTS: touching

[Welpe]

Not that word again!

[Rich]

Originally Posted by svm1010

Becareful with an RTS call.

There is a big difference between a hurdling call (15 yards) and a RTS call (15 Yards + Automatic 1st down)

to summarize:
Hurdling = going over
RTS = Charging into.

Except if the snapper's hand is on the ground, this cannot be hurdling. See: definition of hurdling.

[svm1010]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Except if the snapper's hand is on the ground, this cannot be hurdling. See: definition of hurdling.

True, but that's not what my statement was in regards to, only that RTS and Hurdling are not the same from an enforcement perspective.

The position of the Snapper's hand and his percieved vulnerability is what makes this such an interesting intellectual discussion. I suspect that if you give this situation to 100 sufficently qualified officials I expect that you could possibly see all three answers, No call, Hurdling, or RTS.

The real issue that I see here is that we have entered the gray area between the rules and this is where our officating philosophy takes over. Did this guy gain an unfair advantage? Did he take an unecessarilly risky action that could have resulted in serious injury? Did he do something that could comprimize our ability to officiate the remainder of the game? If you answer yes then I think you call something. Situation and instinct will dictate what you call or don't call (and what you must sell)

Good luck

[patalia]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Go back to bigjohn's quote:

"By rule it is not hurdling because the snappers hand is on the ground. That is why I tell our snappers to vary the pause for extra points. Most teams will tim up the snap. If the defender stepped on the center, is it a foul?"

which implies if the snapper has his hand on the ground you cannot hurdle him. You cannot hurdle a player if the player is in the air but if a player is on the ground it is hurdling (is feet are on the ground).

No Ed, it implies you can hurdle if the snapper has his hand on the ground and is a correct implication by rule. Hurdling is allowed if the defender has another part of his body other than his feet touching the ground. If he does not, it is an illegal hurdle if he only has his feet on the ground.

[mikesears]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Not that word again!

Now that's funny!