Wouldn't this be considered hurdling? and be a flag!!

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

I would not defend a coach who did something wrong. I have called out many coaches for being unsportsmanlike, unethical and not protecting player.

Apples vs Eskimos.

[Robert Goodman]

I'm not sure it met the technical requirement of hurdling, and if it did I'm not convinced penalizing it would be in the spirit of the rule. It looked like the ballcarrier more or less jumped in place (although I couldn't see his feet when he started to leave the ground), although he did extend his right foot forward while in the air. The attempted tackler may have had his feet on the ground, but was bent very low at the waist, and more went under the ballcarrier than the ballcarrier went over him. This is not the classic case of someone leaping forward crotchwise over the head of an opponent, and if there was a chance of contact with that opponent's head, it was caused more by the tackler than by the putative hurdler. The ballcarrier went mostly over the attempted tackler's back.

I'm not sure whether the rules definition of "hurdle" should be eliminated (and thus have people fall back on their general understanding of what it means) or made more detailed. The current definition captures some cases in line with most people's intuition, but not others, and I'm not sure whether the distinction could be easily set out in words. In the present case, although a different viewing angle might change my mind, I don't think the officials erred in not flagging this.

I'd also consider broadening the rule to encompass other efforts to go over erect opponents, including diving head first, inasmuch as there may be dangers there that are unjustified leaving in the game as distinct from those of hurdling per se.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I'm not sure it met the technical requirement of hurdling

Yes, it did. Pretty much exactly. None of the rest of your post is really relevant.

That said --- this is a REALLY REALLY dumb rule. Why should this action that we see in the video be illegal?

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Yes, it did. Pretty much exactly. None of the rest of your post is really relevant.

That said --- this is a REALLY REALLY dumb rule. Why should this action that we see in the video be illegal?

Agreed on your first point 100%. When a player goes over another player, they generally do it one of two ways: head first or feet first. If they land on their feet they likely went feet first (as in this video). If they went head first they will land on something else.

The reason this is a foul is it could be very dangerous for both the hurdler and hurdlee. The hurdler could be flipped and land on their head. The hurdlee could take a knee or foot to the head or chest. I've seen several videos where either of those happened. Rather than encourage players to try it because they MAY clear with no issues, the rules committee has decided to make the attempt a foul.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Agreed on your first point 100%. When a player goes over another player, they generally do it one of two ways: head first or feet first. If they land on their feet they likely went feet first (as in this video). If they went head first they will land on something else.

But what if it was neither head nor feet first, but just jumping in place? That's what it looked like the player did here. I don't think he moved forward, but came down on his feet at the same place they left the ground. Otherwise he'd've had forward momentum after he landed, and it looked like his ability to dodge the 2nd attempted tackler was because the ballcarrier had stopped moving forward.

[Texas Aggie]

One reason why I'm glad I don't work Fed rules. This is truly stupid. There's little, if any, reason for this rule. From what I've heard on here, a lot of guys don't or wouldn't call it if it did occur.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

One reason why I'm glad I don't work Fed rules. This is truly stupid. There's little, if any, reason for this rule. From what I've heard on here, a lot of guys don't or wouldn't call it if it did occur.

The only replays most of us see are the ones where the hurdler doesn't clear the defender. These are amazing athletic moves and nobody gets hurt. I've seen several though where the hurdler doesn't clear the defender and one or both gets hurt. I tried to find some on YouTube as examples. The one I have had in a game, the runner landed on the defenders shoulders and was taken to the ground. It wasn't a great hurdle.

Some have proposed changing the rule to only penalize the runner if he makes contact while hurdling. That would still encourage them to try as they have no idea if they'll be able to clear the defender.

NCAA probably thinks their backs are more athletic and more likely to clear the defender when they hurdle. That is much less likely for a high school runner.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But what if it was neither head nor feet first, but just jumping in place? That's what it looked like the player did here. I don't think he moved forward, but came down on his feet at the same place they left the ground. Otherwise he'd've had forward momentum after he landed, and it looked like his ability to dodge the 2nd attempted tackler was because the ballcarrier had stopped moving forward.

Then he jumped over the opponent feet first. If the opponent has nothing besides his feet on the ground, he mostly likely going to have to leap at least 2-3 feet to get over someone which is what this rule is attempting to avoid. It may be even more dangerous to do this by jumping in place because you don't have as much momentum.