"ART. 1 . . . Passing the ball is throwing a ball that is in player possession. In a
pass, the ball travels in flight. "

Pffft... um. NO! Of course not.


Sure. What's your point. Why is there any motivation by anyone here to call the OP an illegal snap? The rules basis for that is infinitely small, and doesn't seem (to me) to be the motivation of the rules writers. It seems we're trying very hard to justify calling something illegal in a case where there's no reason for us to have the desire to call it illegal. Or, to the adv/disadv people, what advantage is gained by the offense snapping the ball in the way described in the OP as opposed to lifting the ball 1 millimeter off the ground while making exactly the same snap. I don't get the motivation here.

Against my better judgement ... what exactly are you disagreeing with me about, and how am I picking a nit at all... I'm saying let it go. The fact that the OP would be ruled illegal by some, but legal if the ball moved even a millimeter off the ground ... there's your nit.

soooo how far oob does a player have to be to be out of bounds...is a couple millimeters the same as being in?? or is a couple millimeters considered out?? : )

Completely different - I think even you would agree... but to keep with your point ... if I can SEE that they have stepped out, they are out. And at least in that case you likely have the very best possible angle - and are likely looking right at it, as the player going down the sideline and whether he goes out or not is your primary focus, with everything else being watched peripherally.

If you're trying to imply, by this, that you can actually see whether that ball that looks like a completely legal snap to the other 5000 people in the stands did or did not rise a millimeter off the ground, then I would have 2 things for you. 1) Why are you looking RIGHT THERE - you've moved your focus from the other 10 things you're supposed to be watching at that moment... and 2) Please stand up and get your head off the ground, as that is the ONLY angle from which you could possibly be positive of your call.

All that said, however... that's not really my point. My point, really, is that I don't believe the rulesmakers EVER intended the officials to be differentiating between a snap that rolls and never leaves the ground and one that rises ever so minutely. There are several things that make a snap illegal. I truly don't believe that anyone EVER intended officials to cobble together the rules you've cobbled together to rule that a snap that for whatever reason (intent or just bad snap) does not actually leave the ground on it's way back to it's recipient is illegal ... while on that ever so infinitessimally does leave the ground is legal. (Nevermind that I don't buy the cobbling itself, don't believe that an official CAN (even if not doing his job correctly) make this determination, and don't believe that you SHOULD (while doing your job correctly) be looking at this nit to the expense of all the other far more important things you should be looking at.)

I don't know what position you work, but evidently it isn't umpire. The umpire is supposed to make sure we have a legal snap, so, it would be his job to make sure that it met the requirements.
As to cobbling rules together, I really don't think that is the case. Define a snap and you get to pass, define pass and you get the ball traveling in flight. As to picking nits that it need to be a millimeter off of the ground, I disagree completely. It needs to be visibly "passed" in a shotgun type formation. The nit picker would try to make the millimeter of flight legal, in my mind if it isn't clearly "passed" or handed then it is illegal.

Well in that same vein, what the hell does it matter if he rolls it back or passes it back, Really both get the ball to the back and no advantage is gained, is it?

At best you get to a pass travels in flight. But again, it says that it does, not that it must. The umpire is charged with making sure we have a legal snap. However, in the case described here there is ZERO chance of him seeing the ball at the moment it leaves the center's hand (again ... unless he's laying on the ground). If you can see this from there (or from anyone else's position), you're doing something wrong. THIS is not what the U is supposed to be looking at when determining a legal snap. I guarantee that no one in any clinic I've ever been to has said, "You umpires out there make sure that snap leaves the ground!!!" Never. Not once. To be completely honest - you are the only person I've EVER heard that wants to pick this particular nit.

That's a definition. Statements of fact, not commands. No "must" needed there. If something meets those conditions, it's a pass, otherwise not.
It's come up in actual cases, which is why coaches are discussing it.
Hard for me to infer that.

Different codes have defined "pass" differently. In NFL & Canadian football, handing the ball is a type of pass, in NCAA & Fed not. "Fumble" could have been defined in its intuitive way, i.e. involuntary loss of possession, but that's not what the rules makers have done. I'm not sure why they wrote them in such a way that a rolling or sliding pass is not a "pass", nor is a leave pass, where the ball is left on the ground. The requirements for the snap went thru some alterations, with interesting differences between American & Canadian development.

I'd have to research the development of the definition of "pass" to see if it came after its inclusion in the snap requirements, as I suspect it did. If that's true, then banning the roll-all-the-way snap was a side effect of adopting that definition of pass. Similarly, the NCAA & NFL restrictions on advancing a fumble apply to certain cases that would not be so if you could roll or slide a backwards pass, or just let go of the ball wihtout a throwing motion and have it fall backward. Did they really want it to be illegal for a team to advance the ball by a desperation leave-the-ball-behind-you pass? Maybe yes, maybe no.

What's the difference what the score is? The game's going to end anyway.

But the same could be said about a snap that moves a mm backward, as opposed to one that doesn't. There was never specified a minimum distance backward the ball has to be snapped, so the determination must be made between something and nothing.

Posed two scenarios to our head football guy in WI at the WIAA....my question followed by his response.


If the center (A55) snapped the ball back and it went; a) went straight back along the ground, loose bouncing back to the QB (A12) without getting airborne at all.
Or
b) backward from LOS but still under the center, without being touched by any other A player.

The snap ends when the ball hits the ground and it becomes a loose ball. Since the snap from the center touched the ground, the snap ended and it is a fumble. If recovered by the offense they may continue the play. It would be a loose ball. Team A could recover the loose ball and advance, as could B.

If the snapper were to fail to release the ball, you'd have an illegal snap. But if he immediately releases the ball and it is loose, I would keep the ball live. So in both (a) and (b) scenarios presented below, live ball.

That's your "head football guy" at the state association? Wow.

Wow. Heck... I'm in agreement with this being a live, legal snap... but honestly that reply is weak. Wouldn't you agree?

I appreciate your diligence here CH and you do what your people tell you. My contention is that he never snapped it.

No offense to our "head football guy" but you're better off asking these questions to a group of officials who diligently study the rules. In other words, here.