![]() |
|
|
|||
Slapping the Snap
I still say it is illegal and here is my rule coverage.
The snapper is not a runner so he is not like anyone else with the ball to be swiped at. The scrimmage has to start with a legal snap. If B interferes with that it is a disconcerting act and should be penalized, if there is contact with that act it should be considered UNR. B has to start this motion prior to the snap to have any chance of slapping the ball. 9-5-1d. Using disconcerting acts or words prior to the snap in an attempt to interfere with A’s signals or movements Read more: CoachHuey.com - Interfering with the Snap
__________________
When my time on earth is gone, and my activities here are passed, I want they bury me upside down, and my critics can kiss my azz! Bobby Knight |
|
|||
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. Last edited by Ia-Ref; Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 08:22am. |
|
|||
Agree. In theory: possible to slap the snap legally. In practice: always encroachment.
__________________
Cheers, mb |
|
|||
Quote:
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? |
|
|||
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.
__________________
When my time on earth is gone, and my activities here are passed, I want they bury me upside down, and my critics can kiss my azz! Bobby Knight |
|
|||
Quote:
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. Last edited by Robert Goodman; Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 12:31pm. |
|
|||
Your words
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.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith |
|
|||
I say the scrimmage has to start with a legal snap and any act by B to delay or prevent the legal snap is a disconcerting act and should be penalized as USC not 5 yards for encroachment.
__________________
When my time on earth is gone, and my activities here are passed, I want they bury me upside down, and my critics can kiss my azz! Bobby Knight |
|
|||
Say what you want. Luckily the rest of us have a rulebook.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
BS, to slap the snap B has to act before the actual start of the snap. Slapping at the snap is just like doing handsprings! it is not real football and is a disconcerting act and should be penalized!
The scrimmage has to begin with a legal snap! Any act by B to prevent or delay that is illegal by rule and intent! My Rules Book says this. You know it is not a Rulebook, right?
__________________
When my time on earth is gone, and my activities here are passed, I want they bury me upside down, and my critics can kiss my azz! Bobby Knight Last edited by bigjohn; Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 10:09am. |
|
|||
Quote:
Slapping the snap requires B to start moving before the ball is snapped. So does a blitz - so a blitz is illegal motion by the defense. A touchdown requires the ball to break the plane of the goal line. Anything by B to prevent or delay this is an unfair act. Boy - this game sure is a lot more complicated with this new rule book! |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Slapping the Snap | bigjohn | Football | 82 | Sun Oct 26, 2008 02:44pm |
Slapping The Backboard | kerry7 | Basketball | 17 | Thu Jan 11, 2007 10:25am |
Judgment calls on pre-snap and at-the-snap fouls??? | ChickenOfNC | Football | 18 | Tue Jan 09, 2007 01:44pm |
slapping of the backboard | timharris | Basketball | 2 | Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:09pm |
Slapping the Backboard | rpirtle | Basketball | 22 | Wed Feb 05, 2003 10:16am |