What amazes me is the people that will still argue with me when I tell them

#1 - the definition of a legal snap. I think that the legality of the snap can be argued in this play.
#2 - To me what can't be argued is the case book scenario:
But because is it on the news and they say it is legal, then it HAS to be legal

I listened very closely to the various ESPN incarnations of this video, and the closest I heard to a claim of legality was an ex-player asking, "That can't be legal, can it?"

The answer was: "the refs allowed it!" :(

Yes, the refs allowed it. But now this play is going to be a topic of conversation for every association meeting and every rules interpreter/clinician pretty much everywhere.

So it'll be much harder for any team to get away with next time.

Since the refs didn't flag it, why would news stations, websites, etc think the play is illegal? If I didn't hang out on this board, I wouldn't have known. Blame your brothers in stripes, NOT those showing the video.

The issue isn't so much the NBC, CBS, and ABCs screwing it up (although they are supposed to be reporters too), it's ESPN screwing it up. ESPN is supposed to have a bunch of football journalists on staff. A journalist who is doing his job right would know enough about football to at the very least think "something's not right about this" and then call one of the 10 or so football referees his developed a relationship with to do a little research. A real journalist would already know the rule cold and wouldn't need the research.

It's just another sorry statement on the poor quality of sports journalism. All they require of them is the ability to look at a screen and go "Wow! Look at that!"

Edit: This of course doesn't excuse the referee crew for kicking it.

Disagree. It's obviously illegal, and not an interesting or challenging play to discuss.

I don't know. There's going to be at least one association that's going to focus on it. (I hope it's the one these guys belong to.) At the very least, I would guess a lot of association do a Don't-be-these-guys kind of thing.

We have plenty of guys in our association who either never attend meetings or do attend but have no clue this is illegal. There other associations in our state that never have formal meetings. Youth games aren't always officiated by licensed officials. The fact this particular play has received so much publicity and most people now think it is perfectly legal, I think having a brief discussion at an association meeting would be a good idea. There wouldn't be a debate unless one of the guys wants to be "that guy". I'm sure there will be some at every association meeting though that didn't realize plays like these were fouls.

It actually kinda does in NCAA too, it just does not use the word "immediately". What it does say is it must move from the ground in a quick and continous motion of the hand, the ball actually leaving the hand in this motion.
So, I'd like TA to explain exactly how you have a quick and continuous motion and the ball leaving the hand in that motion unless it fairly immediately leaves the hand. If he keeps the ball in his hand, it's not a quick and continous motion now is it? Sounds like it needs to leave the hands pretty immediately.

It's not just that. You have to do some research to find out the rules a particular youth game is played by. I'm still learning some of the rules we have to go by when we're up by 18+ points!

But it did leave his hands as "immediately" as it probably would have had he snapped it between his legs. That wasn't the failing. Rather, it's that the motion wasn't quick.

So let's take that off the table and imagine a case that would be controversial. No relevant verbal signals prior, and then:

QB to C: "Doofus, never mind the signal, just hand me the ball."

C to QB: "Like this?"

Snapper hands ball to QB as shown on video, but faster.

QB to C: "Yeah, just like that. Now watch as I walk it upfield."

QB walks ball to end zone.

Treat it as Fed rules. You let it go or not? It doesn't shout out, "Snap is not imminent." However, it works only by team B's not considering the ball to have been snapped.

I disagree that a sports journalist is expected to know all the rules, even in a sport as popular as football. Even if a commentator saw the clip and thought "something's not right", the fact no one on the field (who should be up to date on ALL rules) threw a flag would probably be enough for him to think "it must be legal".

Let's even use someone who played/coached football, and presumably knows the rules better than your "average" sports journalist. They see the play and know it was illegal when/where they played, but they don't know what rule set is being used or even if a rule might have changed since they played. They see no yellow flags following the play so "it must be legal".

Believe me, I get that commentators are clueless and often give our wrong information (particularly when you're talking about details about an issue). But without a) yellow flags on the field or b) a coach or someone protesting the illegality of the play, I don't see anything to "raise flags" (pun intended) in anyone's mind.

This kind of lack of expectation is why they get away with it. Journalists are lazy because we don't demand any better from them. If your livelihood depends on writing stories about a game, the least you should do is learn the rules of the game. After all, it's really not a hard thing to do.

But for some reason, we just accept that they're lazy.

Don't forget announcers and writers do not hesitate to say officials got a play wrong in other instances where they don't throw flags. They rarely assume that just because a flag isn't thrown it must be legal.

I would never expect a journalist to know the rule on a goofy play like this. There should be some kind of trigger in their head though to check with someone who does know. Unfortunately he could have called his buddy who was the R in the game and still gotten the wrong information.

I'm sorry, I should have specified. You are correct about announcers calling out officials when there's no flag, but I think it's safe to say that's for more "well known" (I use that term loosely:D) rules.

I think this is one of those where even if someone thought "it looked wrong", the "crowd's" reaction convinced him HE was wrong. Does that make sense?