Hurdling
 

http://www.chillicothegazette.com/in...es-ESPN-Top-10

Looks like the flag was thrown!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LxcCsr0fhk
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/9LxcCsr0fhk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Yes, it was illegal. ;)

Peace

He didn't even have to refer to the rule book to make the call...;)

Youtube comments were hilarious.

From reading some articles, they seem to indicate this is only a foul in Ohio. :)

That's because this play only occurred in Ohio. :)

Shouldn't the fllag be thrown at the spot of the foul? Is that where he took off or where he went over the B player?

Since he did nothing illegal until he cleared his opponent, the spot of the foul is where he cleared his opponent.

While the flag seems to be way off the mark, we don't know if they moved the flag to the appropriate spot and enforced the foul from there.

The question is slightly ridiculous, since those spots can't be far apart (unless the runner is Jesse Owen). If we're within a yard or two, we're good.

The act began where he left the ground, unless you want to flag his evil intention. :rolleyes:

I just wondered the thinking on this,, sorry it became ridiculous!

I saw a play very much like this in a JV game several years ago. I couldn't figure out why the back was still on JV!

Incidentally, this is legal under NCAA rules.

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

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/w9rqvzKEVaw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Yep.

“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.)

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.

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

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/o27mdWvIR3Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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.

Frankly, who gives a crap? If it's a foul, flag it. If it's not, don't.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.)

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

And it's not legal. ;)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

For the subject at hand, hurdling, the risk is greater from the front as that's where the contact will me made on the hurdle.

I think you're seriously overanalyzing a rule written by coaches who simply don't want runners hurdling defenders.

Honestly not understanding why you're continuing to argue this... you're barking up the wrong tree.

Exactly. The rule is for safety, that is clear. Coaches and administrators wrote this rule (a very long time ago and before YouTube) and have made it a POE to emphasize the rule.

And none of us here have much or anything to do with the rule possibly changing.

Peace

I read statements, I respond to them. Where I read them or who writes them, I don't care.

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.