Post by: Stinterp on September 23, 2018, 10:52:31 AM
Post by: CalhounLJ on September 23, 2018, 11:16:36 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Stinterp on September 23, 2018, 01:28:17 PM
Post by: AlUpstateNY on September 23, 2018, 01:42:26 PM
The linemen have a hand on the ground.....can't be hurdling
Not according to NFHS 2-22:"Hurdling is an attempt by a player to jump (hurdle) with one or both feet foremost over an opponent who is contacting the ground with no part of his body except one or both feet.". "Hands" are irrelevant.
Post by: BIG DON on September 23, 2018, 02:29:25 PM
NFHS does not have a foul for leaping ( NCAA does have a leaping foul)
However you could sill have other fouls here depending on contact if the LB had made contact with the crown of his helmet or made contact above the shoulder pads and to the helmet of the opponent then you would have a PF with a possible ejection
Post by: FLAHL on September 23, 2018, 07:09:27 PM
This reminds me of the argument that the nose tackle is so quick that he can hit the ball after it’s snapped but before it gets to the QBs hands. We now have a rule that says this is illegal. We need something similar here.
Post by: SouthGARef on September 23, 2018, 07:20:08 PM
I’ve got a foul for hurdling every time. Did the linebacker encroach? If not, then we’re saying the Guard simply stayed in his 3 point stance at the snap. Didn’t he pick up his hand and move to block somebody? Was that LB so quick that he could hurdle the guard before the guard lifted his hand even 1 inch? And he could do this legally, without encroaching? I don’t buy it. This is a safety issue and I’m flagging it every time I see it. If we flag it every time, coaches will stop their players from trying to do it.
This reminds me of the argument that the nose tackle is so quick that he can hit the ball after it’s snapped but before it gets to the QBs hands. We now have a rule that says this is illegal. We need something similar here.
Quoting for truthiness.
Post by: CalhounLJ on September 23, 2018, 07:20:38 PM
I’ve got a foul for hurdling every time. Did the linebacker encroach? If not, then we’re saying the Guard simply stayed in his 3 point stance at the snap. Didn’t he pick up his hand and move to block somebody? Was that LB so quick that he could hurdle the guard before the guard lifted his hand even 1 inch? And he could do this legally, without encroaching? I don’t buy it. This is a safety issue and I’m flagging it every time I see it. If we flag it every time, coaches will stop their players from trying to do it.+1
This reminds me of the argument that the nose tackle is so quick that he can hit the ball after it’s snapped but before it gets to the QBs hands. We now have a rule that says this is illegal. We need something similar here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: SCline on September 23, 2018, 09:50:47 PM
I’ve got a foul for hurdling every time. Did the linebacker encroach? If not, then we’re saying the Guard simply stayed in his 3 point stance at the snap. Didn’t he pick up his hand and move to block somebody? Was that LB so quick that he could hurdle the guard before the guard lifted his hand even 1 inch? And he could do this legally, without encroaching? I don’t buy it. This is a safety issue and I’m flagging it every time I see it. If we flag it every time, coaches will stop their players from trying to do it.
This reminds me of the argument that the nose tackle is so quick that he can hit the ball after it’s snapped but before it gets to the QBs hands. We now have a rule that says this is illegal. We need something similar here.
+1 more
Post by: prab on September 23, 2018, 11:06:58 PM
I’ve got a foul for hurdling every time.
Disagree completely!
OP clearly states that O linemen start in and maintain a 3 point stance. By definition this eliminates hurdling. You have changed the OP and assumed that the O lineman in question must have raised his hand before the leap. You have provided an answer to a question that was not asked. Two different scenarios!
Post by: CalhounLJ on September 24, 2018, 06:42:26 AM
Disagree completely!I disagree. I believe he has provided a common sense application according to the intent of the rule to a highly improbable and nonsensical, theoretical situation. While the technical wording of the rule may exclude this specific situation, the intent of the hurdling rule is clear- to prevent a knee-head collision. The fact that A may or may not have his hand on the ground does nothing to lessen that danger.
OP clearly states that O linemen start in and maintain a 3 point stance. By definition this eliminates hurdling. You have changed the OP and assumed that the O lineman in question must have raised his hand before the leap. You have provided an answer to a question that was not asked. Two different scenarios!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bama_stripes on September 24, 2018, 06:47:25 AM
^flag
Post by: markrischard on September 24, 2018, 07:52:11 AM
Post by: CalhounLJ on September 24, 2018, 08:07:04 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: jason on September 24, 2018, 02:40:58 PM
Post by: Ralph Damren on September 25, 2018, 10:04:09 AM
(1) A defender ,with a running start, hurdled the snapper and blocked the kick- it was later learned that said player also a high-hurdle champ at some level;
(2) I believe the NFL has since outlawed such an act;
(3) I KNOW that my phone rang off the hook the following morning from coaches asking : "Can we do that,too??"
(4) My response was : " NO, it's a dangerous act and I would call it hurdling."
(5) They agreed.
If a player hurdled an opponent that is late in rising from his 3-point stance, I would still consider it hurdling as it is a safety issue. A few years ago there was a proposal to remove hurdling as a foul. The NFHS has a staff doctor and he showed us a video of failed hurdling attempts, where a hurdler either landed on his head or kicked the hurdled player in the head with injury resulting. IMHO, safety is the most important part of our high school game and deserves to get the benefit of doubt.
Post by: 5050pete on September 25, 2018, 10:50:47 AM
ART. 3 . . . No player or nonplayer shall:
a. Swing the foot, shin or knee into an opponent, nor extend the knee to meet a blocker.
b. Charge into or throw an opponent to the ground after he is obviously out of the play, or after the ball is clearly dead either in or out of bounds.
c. Pile on any player who is lying on the ground.
d. Hurdle an opponent.
e. Position himself on the shoulders or body of a teammate or opponent to gain an advantage.
f. Throw a helmet to trip an opponent.
g. Make any other contact with an opponent, including a defenseless player, which is deemed unnecessary or excessive and which incites roughness.
h. Grasp an opponent’s face mask, any edge of a helmet opening, chin strap, or a tooth and mouth protector attached to the face mask and twist, turn or pull the face mask, helmet opening, chin strap or a tooth and mouth protector attached to the face mask; or incidentally grasp an opponent’s face mask, helmet opening, chin strap or a tooth and mouth protector attached to the face mask.
i. Initiate illegal helmet contact. (butt block, face tackle or spear)
NOTE: Illegal helmet contact may be judged by the game official a flagrant act. Acts that may be judged to be flagrant include, but are not limited to:
1. Illegal helmet contact against an opponent lying on the ground,
2. Illegal helmet contact against an opponent being held up by other players, and/or
3. Illegal helmet-to-helmet contact against a defenseless opponent.
j. Strike an opponent with his fist, locked hands, forearm or elbow, nor kick or knee him.
k. Grab the inside back or side collar of either the shoulder pads or the jersey of the runner and subsequently pull (backward or sideward) that opponent to the ground (Horse-collar), even if possession is lost. The horse-collar foul is enforced as a live-ball foul.
l. Initiate contact with an opposing player whose helmet has come completely off.
m. Target an opponent.
n. Execute a blindside block outside of the free-blocking zone with forceful contact unless initiated with open hands.
Post by: CalhounLJ on September 25, 2018, 10:51:57 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Ralph Damren on September 25, 2018, 11:26:35 AM
Post by: refjeff on September 29, 2018, 08:10:24 PM
I disagree. I believe he has provided a common sense application according to the intent of the rule to a highly improbable and nonsensical, theoretical situation. While the technical wording of the rule may exclude this specific situation, the intent of the hurdling rule is clear- to prevent a knee-head collision. The fact that A may or may not have his hand on the ground does nothing to lessen that danger.We called a foul on a runner that hurdled a potential tackler that had his knee on the ground. While the technical wording of the rule may exclude this specific situation, the intent of the hurdling rule is clear- to prevent a knee-head collision. The fact that B may or may have had his knee on the ground does nothing to lessen that danger.
Post by: Stinterp on September 30, 2018, 10:08:17 AM
Post by: HLinNC on October 08, 2018, 07:18:26 AM
I understand the safety issue but given that they have made no attempt to revise the wording of the rule, I agree with those that say this is not a foul as described.
Post by: CalhounLJ on October 08, 2018, 01:44:56 PM
Post by: KWH on October 08, 2018, 03:27:21 PM
I’ve got a foul for hurdling every time. Did the linebacker encroach? If not, then we’re saying the Guard simply stayed in his 3 point stance at the snap. Didn’t he pick up his hand and move to block somebody? Was that LB so quick that he could hurdle the guard before the guard lifted his hand even 1 inch? And he could do this legally, without encroaching? I don’t buy it. This is a safety issue and I’m flagging it every time I see it. If we flag it every time, coaches will stop their players from trying to do it.
This reminds me of the argument that the nose tackle is so quick that he can hit the ball after it’s snapped but before it gets to the QBs hands. We now have a rule that says this is illegal. We need something similar here.
+1
Post by: js in sc on October 08, 2018, 06:19:25 PM
I agree this scenario doesn't fit the technical definition of hurdling because a hand is another part of the body. I also fail to see the significance of being bent over at the waist with no hand touching, (which I'm assuming everyone would call hurdling if a defensive player jumped over such a player), and a player bent over in the same position with no hand touching. The danger is 100% the same in both situations.I would agree 100%. The implication that one or both feet are on the ground is that the player may be able to stand up and either hurt the hurdler or himself. The possibility of injury outweighs the literal following of the rule. It will be much easier to explain to the coaches why I called the foul and did not follow the literal interpretation of the rule, than it would be to explain not calling the foul to an injured player's family or a jury.
Post by: CalhounLJ on October 09, 2018, 06:51:34 AM
The purpose of hurdling is to eliminate the attempt at jumping over an upright player. The wording of the rule excepting the fact that some other body part beside one or both feet is factoring in a prone or nearly prone player and is clear intent the Federation is well aware of what they deem a foul. The Fed has had ample time to revise their definition or adjust the rule in the 25 years I've been calling but has not done so.
I understand the safety issue but given that they have made no attempt to revise the wording of the rule, I agree with those that say this is not a foul as described.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bbeagle on October 09, 2018, 02:33:55 PM
A few years back, when the Patriots were a good team :), on Monday night game; the loyal opposition lined up for a field goal when:
(1) A defender ,with a running start, hurdled the snapper and blocked the kick- it was later learned that said player also a high-hurdle champ at some level;
(2) I believe the NFL has since outlawed such an act;
The NFL has outlawed hurdling an offensive lineman to block a kick (they call it leaping). Other hurdling is still legal - see the Bills Josh Allen's hurdle vs. Vikings week 2.
Post by: prab on October 10, 2018, 12:11:47 PM
I would agree 100%. The implication that one or both feet are on the ground is that the player may be able to stand up and either hurt the hurdler or himself. The possibility of injury outweighs the literal following of the rule. It will be much easier to explain to the coaches why I called the foul and did not follow the literal interpretation of the rule, than it would be to explain not calling the foul to an injured player's family or a jury.
I am not an attorney and do not presume to be providing legal advice. However, I have been on the witness stand on numerous occasions and have been asked questions that made me glad that I had followed the rules as they were written and not as I thought they should have been written. I think that if you intend to intentionally misapply a rule, you should not put your thoughts in writing. If another situation, unrelated to hurdling, arises in one of your games and a player is seriously injured, an attorney may be asking you, "Since you have stated in writing that you are willing to misapply the hurdling rule, how can the jury conclude that you were not also intentionally misapplying the rule that is associated with my client's injury?"
Post by: CalhounLJ on October 10, 2018, 12:22:56 PM
In my opinion, if any of us ever make it to the witness stand in this situation, it’s gonna be bad. In fact, not calling it could even be worse.
“Do you understand the intent of the hurdling foul?” Yes, to prevent knee head injury. “Why didn’t you call hurdling?” Because the player had his hand in the ground. “Do you think that lessened the danger?” No. “Then why did you not penalize this safety issue?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: prab on October 10, 2018, 12:50:48 PM
Well, you could apply that straw man argument to virtually any situation. Take the play just posted as an example. “Did you see the player celebrate?” Yes. “You do realize celebration is a foul?” Yes. “Why didn’t you throw your flag?” No harm, no foul. “Do you routinely ignore the rules?”
In my opinion, if any of us ever make it to the witness stand in this situation, it’s gonna be bad. In fact, not calling it could even be worse.
“Do you understand the intent of the hurdling foul?” Yes, to prevent knee head injury. “Why didn’t you call hurdling?” Because the player had his hand in the ground. “Do you think that lessened the danger?” No. “Then why did you not penalize this safety issue?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I stand by my theory that you don't gain anything by putting your intent to misapply a rule into writing. It can come back to bite you, and I can not imagine any way that it can help you!
Post by: CalhounLJ on October 10, 2018, 12:51:50 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: riffraft on October 10, 2018, 02:35:01 PM
I am not an attorney and do not presume to be providing legal advice. However, I have been on the witness stand on numerous occasions and have been asked questions that made me glad that I had followed the rules as they were written and not as I thought they should have been written. I think that if you intend to intentionally misapply a rule, you should not put your thoughts in writing. If another situation, unrelated to hurdling, arises in one of your games and a player is seriously injured, an attorney may be asking you, "Since you have stated in writing that you are willing to misapply the hurdling rule, how can the jury conclude that you were not also intentionally misapplying the rule that is associated with my client's injury?"
Ok, maybe I am being naive, but I think the whole lawsuit issue is a red herring. Has an official been sued in court and lost? I have been unable to find any cases.
Post by: UTchad on October 10, 2018, 02:50:18 PM
Ok, maybe I am being naive, but I think the whole lawsuit issue is a red herring. Has an official been sued in court and lost? I have been unable to find any cases.
Possible most of these cases involve children so perhaps they are sealed. I do know that officials in our association mention that the state was sued because a team was late coming out at half time and they were not granted a full 3 minutes to warm up. QB was hurt in the game, and parents said that if he was given his 3 minutes to warm up they he wouldn't have been hurt. This happened YEARS ago, my understanding is this was settled before trial. In our state it is an emphasis every year to always grant a 3 minute warm up period. If we have long stoppage time for injury for example we also grant a 3 minute warm up.
Post by: refjeff on October 11, 2018, 07:04:22 AM
Possible most of these cases involve children so perhaps they are sealed.That is not possible
Post by: Ralph Damren on October 11, 2018, 07:25:58 AM
Post by: bossman72 on October 11, 2018, 08:17:45 AM
This is no less a safety issue than hurdling a player who is standing upright. The “no part...” exception is mainly to allow a ball carrier to jump over a prone (or almost prone) player without penalty.
^flag
+1 - This is the spirit of the rule. I don't think the rules makers want people hurdling blockers at any time.
Post by: CalhounLJ on October 11, 2018, 08:19:26 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: NoVaBJ on October 15, 2018, 12:33:31 PM
Period.
Post by: prab on October 15, 2018, 12:40:25 PM
B's linebacker is offside. Period.
Period.
WOW!
Post by: prab on October 20, 2018, 05:37:14 PM
Ok, maybe I am being naive, but I think the whole lawsuit issue is a red herring. Has an official been sued in court and lost? I have been unable to find any cases.
Although not exactly on point for this thread, it might change your mind if you review the discussion regarding Law Suit Targets Pop Warner, found on page 7, with last post on 11/01/2017. Ralph's comments on making up rules is spot on as far as I am concerned.
Post by: riffraft on October 20, 2018, 06:38:17 PM
Although not exactly on point for this thread, it might change your mind if you review the discussion regarding Law Suit Targets Pop Warner, found on page 7, with last post on 11/01/2017. Ralph's comments on making up rules is spot on as far as I am concerned.
I understand the point, but still doesn't go against my questions. Has an official every been sued and lost? Neither of those cases involved an official being sued.
Post by: backjudge79 on October 25, 2018, 03:46:41 PM
Post by: AlUpstateNY on October 25, 2018, 04:48:42 PM
Good grief folks, are we actually arguing that jumping over a lineman is not a foul when it is at every other level? It is hurdling and if you don't like that one file it as "unfair acts" category. Use some common sense before someone gets hurt
I thought I read somewhere that the ONLY opening on the US Supreme Court had recently been filled, so perhaps we can focus back on determining, "How may angels can dance on the head of a pin"
Post by: CalhounLJ on October 25, 2018, 04:55:16 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk