Hurdling

[hawk65]

Rule 2-22 says, “Hurdling is an attempt by a player to jump (hurdle) with one or both feet or knees foremost over an opponent who is contacting the ground with no part of his body except one or both feet.” This definition raises several questions:

1. Why just “an attempt?” Is there supposed to be a difference between a player who “attempts” and one who is successful?
2. If a player makes a superb athletic move and hurdles an opponent without even touching him, why is the penalty the same as if he had kicked, fought, struck an opponent out of bounds or any of the other acts listed as personal contact fouls?
3. If a player doesn’t even contact an opponent, why is it “illegal personal contact?” It is not clipping if a player “attempts” to do so but whiffs. Nor is it blocking in the back if he “attempts” but whiffs.

See:
Hurdling.mov - YouTube

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hawk65

Rule 2-22 says, “Hurdling is an attempt by a player to jump (hurdle) with one or both feet or knees foremost over an opponent who is contacting the ground with no part of his body except one or both feet.” This definition raises several questions:

1. Why just “an attempt?” Is there supposed to be a difference between a player who “attempts” and one who is successful?
2. If a player makes a superb athletic move and hurdles an opponent without even touching him, why is the penalty the same as if he had kicked, fought, struck an opponent out of bounds or any of the other acts listed as personal contact fouls?
3. If a player doesn’t even contact an opponent, why is it “illegal personal contact?” It is not clipping if a player “attempts” to do so but whiffs. Nor is it blocking in the back if he “attempts” but whiffs.

Because it's inherently dangerous. There's no difference between successfully attempting it and just attempting it. Same penalty either way.

Regarding 2 and 3, any time a player does this, he puts himself and the opponent at risk of severe injury. I've seen those videos, and they aren't nearly as fun to watch.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by hawk65

Rule 2-22 says, “Hurdling is an attempt by a player to jump (hurdle) with one or both feet or knees foremost over an opponent who is contacting the ground with no part of his body except one or both feet.” This definition raises several questions:

1. Why just “an attempt?” Is there supposed to be a difference between a player who “attempts” and one who is successful?
2. If a player makes a superb athletic move and hurdles an opponent without even touching him, why is the penalty the same as if he had kicked, fought, struck an opponent out of bounds or any of the other acts listed as personal contact fouls?
3. If a player doesn’t even contact an opponent, why is it “illegal personal contact?” It is not clipping if a player “attempts” to do so but whiffs. Nor is it blocking in the back if he “attempts” but whiffs.

See:
Hurdling.mov - YouTube

This rule is all about safety. For the offense, and the defense.

[bigjohn]

Just like throwing a punch, it doesn't have to connect to be flagrant!

[hawk65]

Throwing a punch is a non-football, unsportsmanlike act. Clipping, block below the waist, spearing, roughing penalties, etc., are also all about safety, some for the offense and some for the defense. Suppose you had a defensive player begin a tackle and is clearly leading with his helmet and it would be a clear spearing call if he hits the ball carrier. Instead, the ball carrier sees the impending threat and hurdles the would-be tackler. The tackler clearly meant to initiate contact with his helmet and the ball carrier avoids any contact. But, according to the rule, a flag should be thrown against the ball carrier because someone might have been hurt if contact had occurred, and the flag is for illegal personal contact even though there was no contact.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by hawk65

Throwing a punch is a non-football, unsportsmanlike act.

Fighting is unsportsmanlike but falls under the category of a personal foul.

The Fed (and NCAA besides the runner) does not want players to even attempt hurdling. That's why they penalize even a successful hurdle where nobody is contacted.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by hawk65

Throwing a punch is a non-football, unsportsmanlike act. Clipping, block below the waist, spearing, roughing penalties, etc., are also all about safety, some for the offense and some for the defense. Suppose you had a defensive player begin a tackle and is clearly leading with his helmet and it would be a clear spearing call if he hits the ball carrier. Instead, the ball carrier sees the impending threat and hurdles the would-be tackler. The tackler clearly meant to initiate contact with his helmet and the ball carrier avoids any contact. But, according to the rule, a flag should be thrown against the ball carrier because someone might have been hurt if contact had occurred, and the flag is for illegal personal contact even though there was no contact.

Interesting. That may have figured into NCAA's legalizing of hurdling by the ballcarrier.

The more I think about it, the more interesting. Someone's about to ram his head (with attached gear) into your gut, and what can you do about it? Either take the hit to draw the foul, and risk injury to both of you, or vault over him with your crotch and take the penalty on yourself.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hawk65

Throwing a punch is a non-football, unsportsmanlike act. Clipping, block below the waist, spearing, roughing penalties, etc., are also all about safety, some for the offense and some for the defense. Suppose you had a defensive player begin a tackle and is clearly leading with his helmet and it would be a clear spearing call if he hits the ball carrier. Instead, the ball carrier sees the impending threat and hurdles the would-be tackler. The tackler clearly meant to initiate contact with his helmet and the ball carrier avoids any contact. But, according to the rule, a flag should be thrown against the ball carrier because someone might have been hurt if contact had occurred, and the flag is for illegal personal contact even though there was no contact.

Yep.

[hawk65]

“Because it’s inherently dangerous.” “This rule is all about safety.” Why is it more dangerous to hurdle “..over an opponent who is contacting the ground with no part of his body except one or both feet” than it is to hurdle over a player who has a knee or hand on the ground? Why is one more vulnerable than the other? There are thousands of examples where we ignore acts or conditions that are “inherently dangerous” and could be considered unsafe. Two opposing players run full speed from opposite directions into each other - legal. A receiver jumps high and extends his arms over his head to catch a pass, the defender hits him below the waist before he returns to the ground and the receiver flips over and lands on his head - legal. A 280 pound offensive lineman pulls around the end or runs through the line into the secondary and crushes a 130 pound defensive back - legal. The whole game of football is inherently dangerous but to call an illegal personal contact foul on someone who has used a very athletic move and avoided all contact (or virtually all if there is only incidental contact) seems arbitrary and difficult to defend. (I’m going to post another video example if I can figure out how to do so.)

[Adam]

Honestly, you'll need to ask the coaches who make the rules. But my guess is it has a lot to do with the neck injuries sustained by players who attempt and fail to hurdle their opponents.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by hawk65

“. (I’m going to post another video example if I can figure out how to do so.)

Hawk, save yourself a lot of agita. The people who write the rules have decided Hurdling is dangerous and have proscribed a 15 yard penalty to discourage it. Apparently they see a difference between leaping over a guy standing up and one lying, or falling down.

All the Kings horses and all the Kings men, as well as all the U-tubes you cam muster is NOT GOING TO CHANGE anything. Do yourself a favor and move on to the next rule.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by hawk65

The whole game of football is inherently dangerous

Or, as I used language picked up from another post in a thread last week, "a poor health practice".

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by hawk65

The whole game of football is inherently dangerous but to call an illegal personal contact foul on someone who has used a very athletic move and avoided all contact (or virtually all if there is only incidental contact) seems arbitrary and difficult to defend. (I’m going to post another video example if I can figure out how to do so.)

Conceptually, I think most of us agree with you...

But we don't write the rules. Coaches (for the most part) do. Then we enforce them. This rule's pretty clear and specific - not a lot of grey area here.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Why is the 'attempt' the foul? I've called two hurdles in my 36 years on the field, coincidentally in two consecutive weeks, and the fouls were almost identical: I was the R. QB rolls to his right, turns the corner and comes face to face with the corner coming up on run support. The corner is slightly broken down--something like you see a catcher do in an old baseball movie where he's more standiong than crouching. The QB attempts to hurdle him and succeeds only in planting his shoe and lower leg into the chest and facemask of the cornerback. That's why the 'attempt' is penalized.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: Why is the 'attempt' the foul? I've called two hurdles in my 36 years on the field, coincidentally in two consecutive weeks, and the fouls were almost identical: I was the R. QB rolls to his right, turns the corner and comes face to face with the corner coming up on run support. The corner is slightly broken down--something like you see a catcher do in an old baseball movie where he's more standiong than crouching. The QB attempts to hurdle him and succeeds only in planting his shoe and lower leg into the chest and facemask of the cornerback. That's why the 'attempt' is penalized.

I think what the poster who asked that meant to ask was why success, rather than failed attempt, would be penalized. But I think that's been answered too.