Hurdling

[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.

[hawk65]

Here are a couple more examples in this video. Note the announcers praising the athleticism and the excitement generated: "Oh, Wow!;" "little bit athletic, I think;" "tremendous play;" "unbelievable athlete;" "get some enthusiasm back in the crowd and some life on the sidelines." In the second clip, what would you call and why?
Hurdling 1013 - YouTube

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hawk65

Here are a couple more examples in this video. Note the announcers praising the athleticism and the excitement generated: "Oh, Wow!;" "little bit athletic, I think;" "tremendous play;" "unbelievable athlete;" "get some enthusiasm back in the crowd and some life on the sidelines."

None of this is at all relevant to the discussion. Lot's of highly athletic plays are illegal; many of them exciting. The same comments in your post are made by announcers on all those bone-crushing hits the NFL is trying, with good reason, to get rid of.

[InsideTheStripe]

Originally Posted by hawk65

Here are a couple more examples in this video. Note the announcers praising the athleticism and the excitement generated: "Oh, Wow!;" "little bit athletic, I think;" "tremendous play;" "unbelievable athlete;" "get some enthusiasm back in the crowd and some life on the sidelines." In the second clip, what would you call and why?
Hurdling 1013 - YouTube

I'm not sure that any of the subsequent commenters actually watched the latest video.

The runner in the first play jumped between two players; he doesn't go over either one. That's not a hurdling foul.

In the second, the defender that was being "hurdled" had knees on the ground when the runner left his feet. The defender was athletic enough get back on his feet to drive the offensive player up and back. That's not a hurdling foul, either.

That said, the NFHS rule makers obviously want hurdling to be a personal contact foul regardless of whether or not contact is made. You're pissing up a rope here. If you don't like it, get the rules committee to change it.

Until then, I'll call it when it's there.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe

I'm not sure that any of the subsequent commenters actually watched the latest video.

I hadn't, because it was to his comments on the rule.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe

I'm not sure that any of the subsequent commenters actually watched the latest video.

I can't watch streams at all, and I don't think YouTube has any way to download the videos, it just serves streams.

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I can't watch streams at all, and I don't think YouTube has any way to download the videos, it just serves streams.

There are tricks to do it. Just requires some technical know-how.

And it's not legal.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's probably it. Other things equal, you have to get farther off the ground to hurdle a player on his feet than to vault over one who has a knee on the ground. And there's a high likelihood you'll flip if you don't make it over his head.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by 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.

I just saw something in a coaching thread about a player jumping over a teammate that got me thinking: If the rule is primarily to protect the would-be hurdler, why did they apply it only to attempts to hurdle an opponent, rather than any person? (BTW, it would be hilarious to see an attempt to hurdle an official.)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I just saw something in a coaching thread about a player jumping over a teammate that got me thinking: If the rule is primarily to protect the would-be hurdler, why did they apply it only to attempts to hurdle an opponent, rather than any person? (BTW, it would be hilarious to see an attempt to hurdle an official.)

My guess, because players typically don't try to hurdle teammates.. They just tell them to get out of the way. I doubt that much thought went into the wording of the rule.

[HLin NC]

Real Networks has the capability to download most any web based video.
There used to be a "YouTube downloader" program out there but the last time my laptop got serviced, the tech advised getting it off there along with limewire, P2P, and Sopcast (NFL) so I went with his suggestion.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I just saw something in a coaching thread about a player jumping over a teammate that got me thinking: If the rule is primarily to protect the would-be hurdler, why did they apply it only to attempts to hurdle an opponent, rather than any person? (BTW, it would be hilarious to see an attempt to hurdle an official.)

An opponent is going to try to tackle the hurdler. That puts him in a dangerous position. A teammate isn't going to react the same way an opponent is.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by asdf

An opponent is going to try to tackle the hurdler. That puts him in a dangerous position. A teammate isn't going to react the same way an opponent is.

I would imagine the teammate to be in even a more dangerous position, i.e. being approached from behind, where he can't see him coming. But it would seem the danger to the hurdler of being spilled on his head would be the same.

[asdf]

You asked why the rules committee wrote the rule as it currently is and i gave you the answer. The potential for a serious neck injury is much greater from the front than from the rear.

Also, the next time I see a runner hurdle one of his teammates will be the first time I see that. I've seen hurdling a defender plenty of times.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by asdf

You asked why the rules committee wrote the rule as it currently is and i gave you the answer. The potential for a serious neck injury is much greater from the front than from the rear.

Unless the player injured was trying to use the head as a weapon by presenting it top first, that's not true. The risk of serious neck injury is far greater from flexion than from dorsiflexion. Dorsiflexion is what results from the head's being bent back, i.e. a front hit, while flexion results from the head's being bent forward, i.e. a hit on the back of the head.