RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: #92 on January 11, 2017, 11:24:41 AM
-
I suppose we all saw Tony Lippett leaping offside on that FG attempt:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB2E6IFw_H4
That made me wonder, what if this was not before, but right after the snap had begun...
No defensive player who is inside the tackle box may try to block a punt by leaving his feet in an attempt to leap directly over an opponent.
1. It is not a foul if the player tries to block the punt by jumping
straight up without attempting to leap over the opponent.
2. It is not a foul if a player attempts to leap through or over the gap between players.
Since the tackle box doesn't go beyond the NZ, is Lippett's play legal, or not?
-
Look at the very next phrase after the one you bolded. "May try to block a PUNT". This is not a punt. However he did go over an opponent feet/knees first so it could be hurdling if it was a live ball and the snapper was not touching the ground with anything other than his feet.
-
I suppose we all saw Tony Lippett leaping offside on that FG attempt:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB2E6IFw_H4
That made me wonder, what if this was not before, but right after the snap had begun...
Since the tackle box doesn't go beyond the NZ, is Lippett's play legal, or not?
This rule is for "leaping the shield" on a punt. Not applicable.
-
So it would be legal?
-
Just because it's not leaping doesn't mean it's a legal play. It would likely be a foul for hurdling.
-
I asked a similar question in relation to a play I was involved in:
http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=13043.msg
There seemed to be some debate in Europe about what constituted "over" in relation to a player hurdling 'over' another. Hence my original question about in the gap as you'll still be over the legs of both players.
In an email conversation with Bill LeMonnier, he felt it shouldn't be called as ... "The intent of hurdling is going over an opponent who is not on the ground... the Center may technically not have a hand down on the ground but he's about as low to the ground without laying down as he can be. Again, the rules committee needs to redefine and show examples of what is and isn't. Until that happens I agree with your no-call"
-
Of course, I was so caught up in 9-1-11, I didn't think about 9-1-13...
So foul either way then.