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

[HLin NC]

I worked a state final last December, bigjohn. I am fairly certain that one or all seven of us missed something at some point in the game.

We don't know if it was a game changing call, or actually, a non-call. I imagine after seeing the clip, one or more said "damn, missed that one". Maybe the other 100 or so plays went off without a hitch.

The first official, coach, or player that works a perfect game will be the first. Obviously even the NFL guys- coaches and officials- make mistakes. Ask jeff Triplette and Jason Garrett.

[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?

[JRutledge]

The best officials are never going to work any post season or State Finals, because all of them do not make themselves available. I know that many officials work other things or choose to not be available for all kinds of reasons. So this idea that the best officials are the only ones working a state final is silly. And even when the best are working they make mistakes. And hurdling is so rare I am sure it gives the officials pause. I called it one time in a playoff game (the only time I have ever seen anything close) and I was talked off the call. And when we saw the tape, we agreed for the most part the picking up the flag was not a good idea.

Peace

[zm1283]

That's definitely hurdling according to the rule.

With that said, the rule is awful. I've seen defenders go entirely horizontal and dive at ankles with the top of their helmets and the ball carrier will hop over them and never get more than two feet off the ground and be flagged for hurdling. I think it often penalizes the offense entirely too much.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by zm1283

I've seen defenders go entirely horizontal and dive at ankles with the top of their helmets and the ball carrier will hop over them and never get more than two feet off the ground and be flagged for hurdling. I think it often penalizes the offense entirely too much.

That is not a hurdle. If it's being flagged, it's being incorrectly flagged.

[RMR]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

5 trained officials at the game did not call it hurdling, they are doing the state finals so they must be the BEST!! Must not have been hurdling! LOL!!!

Seven.

And we can tell who's never been selected to work a state championship.

[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 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.

[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.

[bigjohn]

And there hasn't been a single person in this thread that has defended the call.

LOL!!! I stand corrected!

[APG]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

LOL!!! I stand corrected!

Yes, another head coach is the one trying to defend this call. No official here has defended the call.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by APG

Yes, another head coach is the one trying to defend this call. No official here has defended the call.

Exactly. We all have said it should have been a foul by rule. Wondering where the defense of the call is?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

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.

The encouragement / discouragement aspect of this rule is completely ridiculous. The NATURAL inclination of a runner seeing a defender going for him is to jump. The rule is not going to come into his brain at all. And worse - if it DOES, somehow, come into his brain - is the intent of the rulesmakers that the runner simply allow himself to get hit low? Wouldn't that be MORE likely to cause injury, not less?