New interpretation?

[TxJim]

For educational purposes only, I am NOT trying to stir the pot or criticize anyone anywhere.... but I am asking to have clear understanding of what to call and what not to.
I find myself confused by the latest CFO video #14 play 3 regarding USC v Oregon missed FG leaping call;  with the language of 9-1-11, and what had been said previously about this rule when it first came out about when it was a foul. Do we now have a new interpretation?
I saw a gap between the center and guard and the defender leaped and was already in the air when that gap closed.
Does the defender get any consideration here for the offensive formation at the snap?

[ElvisLives]

I’m not sure what previous interpretation you may have heard, but, in this case, this is very clearly a leaping foul. The foul is for leaping into the area above the frame of the body of the snapper. The snapper raised directly upward from his snapping position, without moving or leaning to either side. The defender clearly leaped over the side of the snapper (between the helmet and the left side of the snapper’s rib cage), which is easily within the frame of the snapper’s body. Leaping in a gap would have to be between the adjacent rib cages/waists of the offensive linemen, and that ‘split’ would have to be extraordinarily wide for a defender to NOT be in the frame of one (or both) of the linemens’ bodies (outside edges of the rib cage). The portion of arms raised and extended outside the frame of the body to either side do not count, and a defender ‘could’ legally leap over those. But, again, those splits would have to be extraordinarily wide for a defender to miss flying into the frame of body of one (or both) linemen.
Shaw’s review is consistent with what I have known about the rule, and is a good, correct call, in this case.
Remember, this is a player safety foul, and, when in question, it is a foul.

[dammitbobby]

interesting discussion.

Flipping through the rule book, leaping isn't the only personal foul that does not require physically contact with an opponent to be a foul... I see 9-1-13 - defensive hurdling and 9-1-17 - continued participation without a helmet also listed as personal fouls. Seems odd to classify them as personal foul... just a random observation.

[TxJim]

I’m not sure what previous interpretation you may have heard, but, in this case, this is very clearly a leaping foul.

What I was going for is there "a gap between players" at the *snap* that we should recognize and should clue us in here that a leaping B player here is a foul? We can have a discussion on the width of splits. Perhaps a standard we could say if there are interlocked legs (as there was here), no gap is possible and any leaping by B in this situation is a foul. I recognize that the rule description of "a gap between players" is in 9-1-11-c and not in -b. Just searching for clarity and an axiom on the standard going forward for all FG plays. Maybe I have been long missing the leaping foul standard distinction on a FG/try is different enough versus that on a punt.... where you might more likely see it against the shield. Could I be the only one who does? 

[ElvisLives]

What I was going for is there "a gap between players" at the *snap* that we should recognize and should clue us in here that a leaping B player here is a foul? We can have a discussion on the width of splits. Perhaps a standard we could say if there are interlocked legs (as there was here), no gap is possible and any leaping by B in this situation is a foul. I recognize that the rule description of "a gap between players" is in 9-1-11-c and not in -b. Just searching for clarity and an axiom on the standard going forward for all FG plays. Maybe I have been long missing the leaping foul standard distinction on a FG/try is different enough versus that on a punt.... where you might more likely see it against the shield. Could I be the only one who does?

Jim, I think you are too focused on the gap, and not on the frame of the body. 9-1-11-c refers to a “…gap between players.” That actually refers to the space between the frames of the bodies of adjacent players. It is very difficult for a defensive player to leap through normal gaps between offensive linemen without entering the frame of the body of at least one of them. A 3’ split - foot-to-foot - of linemen would be possible to allow a defensive player to leap through such gap without getting into the frame of the body of one of them. But, we don’t see those kinds of splits very often, especially on field goal attempts. (And I use “field goal” rule literally. A field goal attempt is a field goal attempt, whether during regular scrimmage or a try. The only differences are the point value of a successful field goal and clock status on each of those downs.) On typical field goal attempts, the o-line splits are “zero” - foot-to-foot, if not interlocked. In those cases, it would be virtually impossible for a defensive player to leap in the space between adjacent o-linemen without entering the frame of the body of at least one of them. So, instead of looking at the ‘gap,’ observe the areas above the frames of the bodies of the o-linemen, and observe for encroachments into those spaces.
And this applies to leaping through the ‘personal protectors’ for the punter, as well. Even one-on-one, a defender can’t leap over an 0-blocker and enter the area above the frame of the blocker’s body in an attempt to block a kick.
Focus on the frames of the bodies, and not the ‘gaps.’