The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Football (https://forum.officiating.com/football/)
-   -   Batting the ball BEFORE the snap (https://forum.officiating.com/football/54546-batting-ball-before-snap.html)

HLin NC Fri Sep 04, 2009 01:27pm

Re-read the OP guys...
 
Quote:

bats the ball from the snapper before he can snap it.
You've got encroachment and a warning not to pull that stunt again.

MRH Fri Sep 04, 2009 01:31pm

Our state rep. contacted the NFHS regarding this scenario a few years back. The ruling was (I don't have my manuals with me for reference) that the snap begins when the center begins movement of the ball and ends when he releases it. It is encroachment for any player to be in the NZ "prior" to the snap.

We were told if any defensive player slaps the ball away while it is being snapped an encroachment penalty is to be called on B.

bigjohn Fri Sep 04, 2009 01:35pm

You guys missed what the original poster was getting at.

Nose Guard comes up when everyone goes down and bats the ball from the snapper before he can snap it.

This is clearly a DOG and can be USC if the officials feel it is being done to incite ill will.

wisref2 Fri Sep 04, 2009 01:50pm

I'd go with delay of game (he purposely commited a foul to prevent the ball from being put in play). Then I'd rule abuse of the timing rule, and start the clock on the ready. Then nicely warn him that I can understand why he did it, but it's an unsporting act and to not do it again.

ajmc Fri Sep 04, 2009 02:57pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by wisref2 (Post 623945)
I'd go with delay of game (he purposely commited a foul to prevent the ball from being put in play). Then I'd rule abuse of the timing rule, and start the clock on the ready. Then nicely warn him that I can understand why he did it, but it's an unsporting act and to not do it again.

The prohibition for encroachment begins with the "Ready for Play", so even as you describe it, the appropriate foul is encroachment. If you feel like it DOG would produce the same results, and unless there was something else going on USC would be excessive and inappropriate.

kdf5 Fri Sep 04, 2009 04:04pm

Interestingly enough, Redding won't allow for the possibility of B swatting the snap. It either has to be encroachment or a snap infraction, saying A must have double clutched in order that B has the reflexes to swat the snap.

Robert Goodman Fri Sep 04, 2009 04:32pm

I say you slowly go & retrieve the ball and "accidentally" let those 30 sec. run off your watch, which is now official time.

mbyron Fri Sep 04, 2009 05:31pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by kdf5 (Post 623968)
Interestingly enough, Redding won't allow for the possibility of B swatting the snap. It either has to be encroachment or a snap infraction, saying A must have double clutched in order that B has the reflexes to swat the snap.

According to one school of thought, the snap is instantaneous and has no duration. On that view, it's impossible to swat a snap, and the Reddings interp makes perfect sense. It's either encroachment or a snap infraction.

Robert Goodman Sat Sep 05, 2009 12:19pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajmc (Post 623928)
Why would you try and fit some "similar" circumstance to replace what is a direct remedy to the situation described by NF: 7-1-5 &/or 6 (Encroachment)?

Because in this case, no good can come out of playing out the final 30 secs. and enforcing this penalty as if they were still playing football.

Canned Heat Sun Sep 06, 2009 01:08pm

I would call this either delay or encroachment, unless as stated, it looked as if he was doing this in frustration or trying to save time/stall...then USC fits the bill.

I don't see anything wrong with how you handled it given the situation you explained that night.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:52pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1