Slapping the Snap

[Ia-Ref]

If B encroached, the ball is dead. Otherwise there is nothing illegal about a player slapping the snap.

Let me add that if this were made illegal by rule, I would support it.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Ia-Ref

If B encroached, the ball is dead. Otherwise there is nothing illegal about a player slapping the snap.

Agree. In theory: possible to slap the snap legally. In practice: always encroachment.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Agree. In theory: possible to slap the snap legally. In practice: always encroachment.

I don't think so. In children's football there can be big differences in quickness of players, and you could easily have slow snapper and fast opponent; and at all levels there can be a tell that allows the defense to time a snap exactly.

I'd ask Big John what other live ball actions are forbidden to team B once the ball is moved. Are they forbidden to enter the neutral zone until the snap ends? If not, are they forbidden to start their run forward before the snap begins? On a play where the snap is slung out far to one side, are they forbidden to try to intercept the snap? If they're forbidden to try to go thru the snapper to get to the QB, can the QB hold the ball under the snapper's crotch for a period while his receivers go downfield, secure in the knowledge that the defense can't knock the ball away while it's under the snapper's body, and can't shove the snapper into the QB?

[bigjohn]

If the snap doesn't happen immediately it is an illegal snap. Blow it dead and walk off 5 yards on the offense.

There are no restrictions once the ball moves. I just don't think anywhere, anytime, anyplace, can a B player hit the ball before it gets snapped unless it was an illegal snap or the B player encroached.

To me that is the only way this situation should play out.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

If the snap doesn't happen immediately it is an illegal snap. Blow it dead and walk off 5 yards on the offense.

So the word "quick" in describing the snap should be interpreted as "instantaneous"?

NCAA & Fed use the same words (unsurprising, considering they got them from the same rules committee before they existed as organiz'ns) to describe the requirements of the snap, including the word "quick". So if it were interpreted your way, how could NCAA have a provision penalizing B's interference with the snap at AR 7-1-5 II (or whatever it is now)? It would always have to be a foul by A, as the scenario described by this ruling would be impossible.

Also, do you think the Federation is unaware of this NCAA ruling (which apparently hinges on the meaning of "is snapped"), and have just decided it's unnecessary and is implicit in their own rules wording?

The one thing I'll agree is that the rules makers, when long ago they required the snap to be quick and to leave the snapper's hands, intended to minimize the possibility of situations like that described. However, I think all concerned realized that the snap could never be instantaneous and that although such occurrences could be minimized they could never be eliminated. To me it's clear that NCAA has now decided that if a snap is not completed due to the action of either team, they won't allow a scrimmage play and will penalize the team at fault, but that other governing bodies continue to put the entire onus on team A and are willing to let team B benefit by whatever they can do to disrupt the start of the play or by whatever mess team A makes of an attempted snap.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

There are no restrictions once the ball moves.

Then why is it illegal for the defense to take a swipe at it?

You're talking out of both sides of your a$$, BJ.