what do you have???
 

A lines up in a "tight" formation. QB and 2 RBs very close to the LOS. The center snaps to a different one at different times. The backs are maybe 2 yds behind the linemen. Snaps are usually of a short shotgun variety. However a couple times last night the snapper rolled the ball back to the backs. It didn't short hop them, he actually rolled it. Intentionally or not we don't know...what say you do we have anything here??

This is a good one that was elucidated by Coach Doug, whose posts I see in cx with youth football on a couple of sites.

The American codes require the ball to be snapped via either a passing or handing of the ball. So then look up the definition of pass, and you'll see that sliding or rolling the ball on the ground doesn't qualify. The Fed definition specifies "in flight", and the NCAA rule implies that a pass must start out in flight because the point where it touches the ground (if it doesn't touch a player first) determines whether it's a forward or backward pass. If the ball rolls all the way from the hand of the player who initiates it to the player who first touches it, by NCAA it can't legitimately be said to have been a backwards pass!

The portion of the snap that's in flight could be very brief before it starts to roll, bounce, or skid, but you do need that little bit of air under the initial part of its course for it to qualify as a backwards pass and hence a legal snap. It can bounce, skid or roll the remaining 90% of the way, say, after traveling thru the air the 1st 10%, and it's legal.

I don't know how you proceed under the current rules if the snap never gets off the ground -- i.e. whether you allow the ball to become live and flag for illegal snap, or the ball remains dead as a false start -- but you flag it regardless.

NF

An illegal snap is a dead ball foul. The down can not start with an illegal snap.

Since it sounds like the snap was quick, continous and immediately left the centers hand(s), and definately touched the ground before touching a lineman, I would say this was a legal snap and play on. However, if any of these things does not happen, then it would be an illegal snap and the ball would be blown dead.

Since a snap is defined in the rule book(s) you do not use the definition of a pass to determine legality of the snap.

Disagree: 2-40-1 defines a snap as passing or handing, both of which are defined terms. Rolling the ball is neither, and thus illegal.

I agree with Iump! :)

how does this happen
 

How does it immediately leave his hands before touching the ground if he rolls it???

Can a backwards pass be rolled? as the snapper is moving the ball backwards it has to be passed or thrown to get it rolling, now if he turns the ball on the ground it is a snap infraction.

No. A pass is a throw.

you have to throw the ball at the ground to get it rolling. as long as it is backwards it is legal isn't it?

7-2-8

ART. 8 . . . Any A player on his line of scrimmage may not advance a planned
loose ball in the vicinity of the snapper.

Doesn't say a back can't advance a planned loose ball, does it?

agreed
 

Agreed a back may advance a loose ball...the question remains, did we have a loose ball or an illegal snap....in order for a ball to be loose it must be live, in order for it to be live the snap must be legal....and then there is the chicken and the egg....:)

so if you pass a ball a short distance and it hits the ground and rolls, does it not fulfill the requirements for a snap?

ART. 3 . . . The snap ends when the ball touches the ground or any player.

In what way did this ball not leave the hands of the snapper and then touch the ground.

Honestly, having trouble seeing this as illegal in any ruleset. At worst, it's a planned loose ball. I doubt that a single one of you would rule an illegal snap if a center fouled up a shotgun snap to the degree that it never left the ground ... especially if B recovered it. Nothing in the definition of pass requires the ball begin off the ground or leave the ground at any point.

SECTION 31 PASSING
ART. 1 . . . Passing the ball is throwing a ball that is in player possession. In a
pass, the ball travels in flight.

Sounds to me that this was simply a version of the single wing offense that has been in use since the 40's.

Hmmm... food for thought, but the lack of the word MUST leads me to still see nothing untoward here.

Think of it this way. Ball in player possession, player going down braces himself with the ball, sees a back behind him and tries to shuffle him the ball, but the ball ends up rolling on the ground...

Are you stopping the play? Calling that a bat? What? that can't be anything but a (bad) backward pass...

And no one commented on stopping the play I mentioned should B recover or sack the QB.

Fully agree.

ART. 1 . . . A snap is the legal act of passing or handing the ball backward from its position on the ground. (THAT REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN MET)
ART. 2 . . . The snap begins when the snapper first moves the ball legally other than in adjustment. In a snap, the movement must be a quick and continuous backward motion of the ball during which the ball immediately leaves the hand(s) of the snapper and touches a back or the ground before touching any A lineman. (THIS REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN MET)....
ART. 3 . . . The snap ends when the ball touches the ground or any player.... (THIS REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN MET...and the ball is now a loose ball the second it leaves the snapper's hand(s)

The question begs, what age group are we talking about here?

If its youth ball, I'd say there would be more latitude to let this go if it was on shaky legal ground. Unless of course some Mad Genius youth coach (:rolleyes:) came up with is as an acutal strategy.

Either is in the realm of possibility.

ok here we go LOL
 

MB yes I would and have shut the play down if the snapper makes such a bad snap that it rolls on the ground.

This was a JV game.

We missed one, and penalized one, and had a couple other "questionable" snaps.

The fact that it must leave his hand/s before touching the ground is where we hung our hat. It did NOT leave his hand/s prior to touching the ground. It never was airborne so it wasn't passing the ball, it wasn't handed to anyone so it wasn't handing it. There fore it wasn't a legal snap.

MB in your situation where the ball carrier trys to shuffle the ball and loses it, well...I have a fumble. He meant to pass it but didn't get it done and lost possession, so I have a fumble in your situation.

And. Not prior to. Just AND.

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

I'd rule it as a fumbled snap. Legal and play on. If Team A wants to jeopardize their possession like that, all the power to them.

article 1
 

Article 1 says it is an act of passing or handing.....he certainly doesn't hand it...so did he pass it? passing requires flight, it didn't ever leave the ground so it wasn't a pass. If it isn't passing or handing it isn't a legal snap.

I agree if the snapper just spins the ball and rolls it, it is illegal snap, but he lofts it just a bit and rotates his wrist to make the ball land and roll it is legal.

Seems to me we're picking nits that were not intended by the rulesmakers (not that I was in the room!). What would be the purpose of insisting that the ball leave the ground infinitessimally during a snap? Sounds like we're just creatively trying to force an admittedly undefined section of the rule to fit the answer you want, rather than deriving the answer from the rules themselves.

The rules say the snap can hit the ground, balls roll when they hit the ground, who is picking nits here?

:rolleyes:

The lack of the word "must" where?

Are you denying that a scrimmage down must start with a snap? Do you deny that the rules specify either what a snap is, or what must be done to snap the ball?

It makes a difference whether the ball is on the ground all the way from the time it leaves the player's possession, or travels thru the air any distance on leaving the player's hand(s). In the latter instance, it's a backwards pass. In the former, under the American codes, it's not a pass at all, and since they define "fumble" by exclusion, you'll see that's what it is, which means that NCAA's & NFL's rules on advancing a teammate's fumble come into play in some situations.

In Canadian football AFAIK sliding, rolling, or leaving the ball on the ground is a pass if it's intentional.

The question in the OP concerned whether rolling the ball during the snap is legal. The answer, by rule, is no, because rolling the ball is neither handing nor passing.

If you're looking for a way around that, fine, but it doesn't change the answer. As an official, I'll be looking to see whether the snapper hands or passes the ball backward and otherwise complies with the snap requirements. As an official, I will use my judgment and decide whether to flag a snap as illegal.

Sometimes, you just gotta officiate. :rolleyes:

This has been a topic of serious discussion lately in youth coaching circles, yes.

In Wyatt's wildcat formation (a double wing version of the double/dual T, i.e. 2 QBs close to the snapper) a rolling snap was considered acceptable coaching-wise, although it wasn't coached deliberately.

In the discussion I mentioned above, Coach Doug (who also officiates sometimes) said that he'd only flag it if if appeared to intentionally be rolled all the way. If it got off the ground at all, it's legal no matter how far it subsequently rolled, and even if it didn't get off the ground, if it looked like a slip in an attempt to make a legal snap, he'd let it go.

"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.

If it bumbles along on the ground back to the QB, no different than a lousy snap from a long snapper to a punter, except with less air time.....it stays live.

There are 2 programs that still run wing T around here with the backs all cuddled up behind center and the ball rarely makes it to the backs without it NOT hitting the ground and maybe never gets in the air. I've never seen anyone kill it ever, nor have I.

My honest opinion is some of you really try hard to read way too far into a rule and dissect it....just my 2 cents. Do what you do or what you've done...if the ball moves backwards away from the LOS, it's a live ball if/when it leaves the snapper's hand(s).

Is there some punctuation or something missing? How could it be at the same time "straight back along the ground", "without getting airborne at all", and yet "bouncing"? Was "rolling" or "skidding" meant rather than bouncing, or were these supposed to have been separate cases?

Rolling from hand backward at snap..never being elevated at any time.

Written in a hurry...should've composed it better.