Ego much?

I don't think ANYONE here hated that you pasted the rule that illustrates why this was not hurdling. I think a couple of us were puzzled at your intro of "I know you guys just hate this but...". And I'm puzzled why you've posted again that we hate it, and I'm not sure what you mean by "we;'re wrapped too tight".

We do hate when someone posts an irrelevant rule and tries to morph it to fit some situation for which it was not intended...

But on this one, you posted the right rule that showed the 2 reasons the OP was not hurdling. Nothing to hate there.

John, can we agree that the ball carrier's head and shoulders were first to go over the tackler? That's what I'm seeing, and that does not meet the definition of hurdling. And if you do want this called as a hurdle we're going to be calling every dive over the top in short yardage situations a hurdle.

Walt ... are you saying you think BJ is trying to say this IS hurdling based on the rule he posted? I read it as the opposite ... although your assumption explains the other "hater" comments he's made.

I just freeze-framed the video. At the very first moment the ball-carrier is above the defender, it is only the tip of his helmet and his hand that is above the tip of the defender's head. It's unclear whether the defender's feet have left the ground yet - but by 3 frames later is IS clear that the defender is not on the ground. And by the time the runner's knee passes over the defender, A) the runner is completely horizontal and B) so is the defender - who is not in contact with the ground at all.

So ... it's indisputable that this is NOT hurdling because he doesn't lead with his knee or feet - he's leading with his head and the ball. It's also very likely not hurdling because when the runner's knee is passing over the defender, the defender is not in contact with the ground with one or both feet, as required in the rule BJ so aptly quoted.

Thanks guys for the reply, just wanted to see the responses out there.

I just re-read BJ's posts and now I'm not sure but I think he may agree that this is not a hurdle and it's him posting rules that we hate.

Either way, it's still not a hurdle.

you would be wrong, walt. I just posted the rule. I get beat up any time I post just the rule but I thought that it was needed.

You get beat up because you try to argue about the application of the rule you post, not just for posting a rule. :)

Peace

Jeff, you and I know that is BS, but you think what ever you want.

Sadly, it's not John.

I believe you're mistaken. I can honestly say I've never read anyone simply upset at you (or anyone) posting a rule. The "hate" (as you call it ... not sure it's really that strong though) comes from when someone (you, or anyone) tries to post a rule that is not relevant to the situation being discussed, or posting one that only partially covers the situation and omits the important part.

Remember when the "Boy who cried wolf" actually got into trouble, he was right and there was a wolf. Unfortunately nobody paid attention to him, because of the frequency of false warnings he was accoustomed to delivering.

John, this clearly does not meet the definition of hurdling. Argue against that if you choose but you'd be wrong.

Ya think?

That is why I posted the rule, toshow that it doesn't meet the definition of hurdling. Good Lord. :confused:

Well at least we all agree upon that! ;)

You might understand why people are puzzled.

1. The OP posted a question.
2. Several people answered the question using specific criteria from the relevant rule.
3. You then posted the rule without explanation other than "you'll probably hate this," as if the people answering the OP were incorrect.
4. Now you're surprised when people are defending themselves.

Communication is key.