Forcible hit on sliding QB. Is that always a dead ball foul?

[Fatso]

Once a QB has begun his feet first slide, is there ever a situation where forcible contact would be a live ball foul?

[Brian26]

Once a QB has begun his feet first slide, is there ever a situation where forcible contact would be a live ball foul?

I could be wrong but NFHS doesn't rule the QB down when he starts his slide. If he is hit while sliding and before any part of his body, other than foot or hand, touches ground you would have a live ball PF DP foul.

[bossman72]

Right.  They didn't go in all the way with this rule.  They listed a sliding QB as a defenseless player, but they're not putting him down when he starts his slide.  Interesting conundrum indeed.

[Fatso]

I could be wrong but NFHS doesn't rule the QB down when he starts his slide. If he is hit while sliding and before any part of his body, other than foot or hand, touches ground you would have a live ball PF DP foul.

So that split second when he starts his slide but his leg/hip etc isn't quite touching the ground yet, it's a live ball PF.  But as soon as the leg or anything else touches then he's down and contact would be a dead ball foul?  Do you know what rule# this is discussed in?

Thanks for your response.

[CalhounLJ]

So that split second when he starts his slide but his leg/hip etc isn't quite touching the ground yet, it's a live ball PF.  But as soon as the leg or anything else touches then he's down and contact would be a dead ball foul?  Do you know what rule# this is discussed in?

Thanks for your response.

4-2-2.

[Snapper]

So that split second when he starts his slide but his leg/hip etc isn't quite touching the ground yet, it's a live ball PF.  But as soon as the leg or anything else touches then he's down and contact would be a dead ball foul?  Do you know what rule# this is discussed in?

Thanks for your response.

Guys, IMO, and this is strictly unofficial, but this is a case where you need to use the INTENT of the rule, rather than a strict, legal reading of the Fed rule.  It seems to me that this is another instance where the Rules Committee, with all good intentions, said hey we like this safety rule that College and the Pros have.  And then the editorial committee said, hey we can ignore writing it exactly like the College and Pros and do this ourselves.

If you use a really strict reading of the rule, then what's to prevent the QB, who is also the state champ long jumper, from starting a slide at the B-30 and actually touching the ground at the B-25?  Then for 5 yds, nobody can hit him, yet he gets those 5 yds of gain for free?

No, that's surely not what they intended.  They intended that a ball carrier can protect himself by sliding and giving himself up.

So, in my view, the INTENT of the rule, is that a ball carrier can slide.  He's down when he begins his slide, and he's protected from a late hit when he begins his slide.  So anytime they are hit late during a slide, I believe that it should be a dead ball PF.

[CalhounLJ]

Guys, IMO, and this is strictly unofficial, but this is a case where you need to use the INTENT of the rule, rather than a strict, legal reading of the Fed rule.  It seems to me that this is another instance where the Rules Committee, with all good intentions, said hey we like this safety rule that College and the Pros have.  And then the editorial committee said, hey we can ignore writing it exactly like the College and Pros and do this ourselves.

If you use a really strict reading of the rule, then what's to prevent the QB, who is also the state champ long jumper, from starting a slide at the B-30 and actually touching the ground at the B-25?  Then for 5 yds, nobody can hit him, yet he gets those 5 yds of gain for free?

No, that's surely not what they intended.  They intended that a ball carrier can protect himself by sliding and giving himself up.

So, in my view, the INTENT of the rule, is that a ball carrier can slide.  He's down when he begins his slide, and he's protected from a late hit when he begins his slide.  So anytime they are hit late during a slide, I believe that it should be a dead ball PF.

I agree in philosophy. If we can rule him down, do it.
On another note, I have a hard time picturing a player beginning a slide, but not touching the ground until 5yds later... What would that look like? If/when he
begins the slide, it seems to me he would contact the ground pretty quickly after that, and be downed by rule.

[Fatso]

4-2-2.

  thx 

[dammitbobby]

I agree in philosophy. If we can rule him down, do it.
On another note, I have a hard time picturing a player beginning a slide, but not touching the ground until 5yds later... What would that look like? If/when he
begins the slide, it seems to me he would contact the ground pretty quickly after that, and be downed by rule.

How would this be ruled in NFHS? https://twitter.com/ACCFootball/status/1467303142622740480?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[Brian26]

If we rule him down when he starts the slide what we going to say to the coach when it looks like he is sliding but doesnt or puts a hand down then pops back up?

I understand NCAA took this away but it's still a possibility in NFHS by rule.

[Snapper]

I agree in philosophy. If we can rule him down, do it.
On another note, I have a hard time picturing a player beginning a slide, but not touching the ground until 5yds later... What would that look like? If/when he
begins the slide, it seems to me he would contact the ground pretty quickly after that, and be downed by rule.

That's just a ridiculous extreme that I made up that is theoretically possible if we use the very precise letter of the rule regarding slides.  I believe that we should instead use what I believe is common sense and the intent of the rule.

[Snapper]

How would this be ruled in NFHS? https://twitter.com/ACCFootball/status/1467303142622740480?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

They probably have to rule it legal because as Brian says, they haven't addressed it yet.

Although if I were evaluating your film, and you blew that dead, I wouldn't downgrade you.

[refjeff]

That's just a ridiculous extreme that I made up that is theoretically possible if we use the very precise letter of the rule regarding slides.  I believe that we should instead use what I believe is common sense and the intent of the rule.

  I figure what they wrote is what they intended and don't like to make stuff up.

Maybe that's just me though.

[Ralph Damren]

Guys, IMO, and this is strictly unofficial, but this is a case where you need to use the INTENT of the rule, rather than a strict, legal reading of the Fed rule.  It seems to me that this is another instance where the Rules Committee, with all good intentions, said hey we like this safety rule that College and the Pros have.  And then the editorial committee said, hey we can ignore writing it exactly like the College and Pros and do this ourselves.

If you use a really strict reading of the rule, then what's to prevent the QB, who is also the state champ long jumper, from starting a slide at the B-30 and actually touching the ground at the B-25?  Then for 5 yds, nobody can hit him, yet he gets those 5 yds of gain for free?

No, that's surely not what they intended.  They intended that a ball carrier can protect himself by sliding and giving himself up.

So, in my view, the INTENT of the rule, is that a ball carrier can slide.  He's down when he begins his slide, and he's protected from a late hit when he begins his slide.  So anytime they are hit late during a slide, I believe that it should be a dead ball PF.

Ralph Boston (same first name & I'm a Red Sox fan ) set a record in the 1968 Olympics with a long jump record of 29' +. That would = a near 10 yard gain with every 'slide'. A creative coach could recruit the school's long jumper and move the ball down the field with 'slide' after 'slide'. We of Patriot Nation recall when Coach B had a NCAA hurdle champ on the team. He hurdled the snapper, blocked a field goal that was returned for a TD.

[Brian26]

If the "intent" of the rule is suppose to be interpreted without it actually stating it why would it just not be written that way. I would think if the NFHS wanted us to read the intent they would have already made it clear. Just my 2 cents.

[HLinNC]

why would it just not be written that way.

See the origin of the horse-collar tackle.

See the new 2023 enforcement procedures.