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

Louisiana High School Running Back Stacy McCray Hurdles Defender, Jukes Another | Bleacher Report



This was in a state championship game!

Appears to be. While one can not 100% state that one or both feet of the opponent's are in contact with the ground, it appears that they are and the runners right foot is foremost so it would meet the parameters of the rule.

Considering the officials allowed an illegal hideout play in a Michigan game, this doesn't surprise me. Sadly, it happens.

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!!!

It must be hard on you being so perfect - surrounded with imperfect people.

I have hurdling on this play. If Louisiana is like other states, the best officials are not working in the state finals.

I'm certainly glad 5 trained officials did not call this hurdling, especially the opposite wing who was some 50 yards away from the play.

Knew that would draw fire! I mean really guys, how do they miss no brainer calls like this in the State Finals??
:mad:

Did anyone on this site tell you that those officials working state finals around the nation are automatically the best? I don't think anyone with more than 2 years in the profession would believe that.

The same reason coaches make boneheaded decisions at every possible level. Because they're human.

And, BTW, you're a troll on this board. Are you really happy being seen that way?

Coach, troll, what is the difference? Clearly you guys are going defend other officials that make terrible game changing calls.

And I'm sure you would defend your coaches if they made terrible game changing decisions. What's your point. This is a site whose purpose is to allow us to discuss situations and all try to improve. Your posts do nothing to further that purpose.

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

The difference is one will allow you to keep posting without issue...the other will mandate a temporary vacation from posting.

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

Apples vs Eskimos.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

Seven.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

LOL!!! I stand corrected!

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?

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.

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.

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."

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.

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

Good point. What do we see - 1 or 2 of these in a year? Has anyone ever witnessed or even heard of an injury caused by someone hurdling? I haven't.

Not only have I never seen an injury, I have not seen this attempted in any game I was working since 2008. This is mostly a situation that this happens on YouTube than in most games I am sure. It does not even happen in college very often either. I think that is one of the main reasons I think you do not see this called at the high school level.

Peace

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

I'm sure they do, but do they have the ratio of injuries per attempt?

It's a lot of work to collect these stats. The only case I'm aware of a football rules governing body's studying statistically the rate of injuries in certain circumstances was 40 yrs. ago with blocking below the waist on kick returns. Usually they just go by anecdotes, hunches, and a priori reasoning that certain practices are more dangerous than others.

I was answering the question:

"Has anyone ever witnessed or even heard of an injury caused by someone hurdling? "

The SMAC has heard of such and provided evidence to the NFHS.