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

[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.

[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?

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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?

I would rather take my chances jumping than take a helmet in the tibia.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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?

The rule is also for the safety of the player being hurdled, who has a pretty good chance of getting kneed or kicked in the head and neck area.

[scrounge]

This is what the NFHS's response was in 2012 to media inquiries on just this topic:

"In 2012, the committee had requests to change the hurdling rule and eliminate it as a foul. By definition: “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 is an Illegal Personal Contact Foul (NFHS Football Rule 9-4-3d) and carries a 15-yard penalty. Recently, national and local media have identified some of these plays at the collegiate and professional levels as “spectacular feats” and glorified the individual’s athletic ability instead of pointing out the heightened potential for harm. Little regard has been given to the fact that attempting to “hurdle” a defender increases the risk of injury to both the hurdler and tackler! The NFHS SMAC requested that this rule not be changed and backed up its request by showing several incidences where players were severely injured while attempting this act! The NFHS Football Rules Committee concurred with the SMAC and did not change the hurdling rule. In addition, to focus on the dangers associated with hurdling, it has been included as a Point of Emphasis for the 2012 season. The emphasis on this illegal act supports the committee’s ongoing attempt to minimize the risk of injuries in high school football. Coaches must teach their players of the inherent dangers associated with this illegal act, and game officials must call it when observed."

[Altor]

MD Longhorn:
Apparently the Sports Medicine Advisory Committee has evidence of injuries that resulted from attempted hurdling.

Originally Posted by scrounge

The NFHS SMAC requested that this rule not be changed and backed up its request by showing several incidences where players were severely injured while attempting this act!

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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?

I don't think that can be predicted. The ball is eventually going to become dead by some means, and more often than not it'll be via tackling. Being hit waist high is a very safe way to get hit, although it's hard to predict how you'll then contact the ground following such a hit vs. any other type of tackle.

But the other point I don't think can be so easily predicted is the danger of hurdling vs. that of diving. The danger to the opponent is that a hurdler might come down on your head, bringing the whole weight of his body on it and endangering your neck. However, I think that'd be a relatively rare event compared to the times a runner on his feet or diving projects toward an opponent's head horizontally. The danger to the hurdler himself is his being undercut and upended and so having an awkward landing. However, is that greater than the danger from diving head first? In the latter case the head is projected toward opponents; in both cases the head might contact the ground. The runner trying to hold onto the ball, no matter how he leaves the ground, is at a disadvantage in not having the use of both arms, or possibly either arm, in bracing himself for a fall.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I don't think that can be predicted. The ball is eventually going to become dead by some means, and more often than not it'll be via tackling. Being hit waist high is a very safe way to get hit, although it's hard to predict how you'll then contact the ground following such a hit vs. any other type of tackle.

But the other point I don't think can be so easily predicted is the danger of hurdling vs. that of diving. The danger to the opponent is that a hurdler might come down on your head, bringing the whole weight of his body on it and endangering your neck. However, I think that'd be a relatively rare event compared to the times a runner on his feet or diving projects toward an opponent's head horizontally. The danger to the hurdler himself is his being undercut and upended and so having an awkward landing. However, is that greater than the danger from diving head first? In the latter case the head is projected toward opponents; in both cases the head might contact the ground. The runner trying to hold onto the ball, no matter how he leaves the ground, is at a disadvantage in not having the use of both arms, or possibly either arm, in bracing himself for a fall.

When the rate of catastrophic injury from diving approaches that of hurdling, the rule will be changed.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by asdf

When the rate of catastrophic injury from diving approaches that of hurdling, the rule will be changed.

Is there a big enough sample from hurdling to even calculate a meaningful rate?

[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.