Legal and illegal hurdling?

[Kalle]

Anybody here happen to know the official NCAA interpretation of hurdling by the ball carrier?

1./10 at A-30. Ball carrier A33 runs towards crouching B55, who is still on his feet with no other body part touching the ground. Immediately before the contact A33 leaps with one foot forward attempting to go over B55, but mistimes his jump and hits B55 in the helmet with the sole of his forward foot. Should this be considered a foul under 9-1-2-b or a legal hurdling attempt?

[NVFOA_Ump]

I believe that this is a "legal" hurdling attempt.  In the 2018 book see 9.1.13:

Hurdling
ARTICLE 13. There shall be no hurdling (Exception: The ball carrier may hurdle an opponent).

[Kalle]

I believe that this is a "legal" hurdling attempt.  In the 2018 book see 9.1.13:

Hurdling
ARTICLE 13. There shall be no hurdling (Exception: The ball carrier may hurdle an opponent).

So, if the ball carrier does any kind of a leaping motion, any contact by either the leading or the trailing foot is legal?

(For what it is worth, my take on this is that the leap is legal as long as the ball carrier does not make material contact with the leading foot. If he does make contact then it is a foul for 9-1-2-b)

[ElvisLives]

So, if the ball carrier does any kind of a leaping motion, any contact by either the leading or the trailing foot is legal?

(For what it is worth, my take on this is that the leap is legal as long as the ball carrier does not make material contact with the leading foot. If he does make contact then it is a foul for 9-1-2-b)

Kalle,

There is not a Rule definition of striking, but, there is no doubt in my mind that "striking" in the context of 9-1-2-b is an intentional action by the player to contact the opponent.  In the instances of BCs attempting to hurdle an opponent, contact with the foot or leg to the opponent would be undesirable, and, thus, not intentional, for this purpose.  This would be considered incidental contact, and not a foul.
I can think of a scenario in which the BC might know that he won't be able to leap over the opponent, but he tries to make it look like he is attempting to hurdle, but he intentionally extends his foot forward, cleats first, to inflict pain on the opponent with the sole and cleats of his shoe.  That would be hard to prove, but, it would certainly qualify as a 9-1-2-b foul, if you could.

Robert

[Kalle]

Kalle,

There is not a Rule definition of striking, but, there is no doubt in my mind that "striking" in the context of 9-1-2-b is an intentional action by the player to contact the opponent.  In the instances of BCs attempting to hurdle an opponent, contact with the foot or leg to the opponent would be undesirable, and, thus, not intentional, for this purpose.  This would be considered incidental contact, and not a foul.
I can think of a scenario in which the BC might know that he won't be able to leap over the opponent, but he tries to make it look like he is attempting to hurdle, but he intentionally extends his foot forward, cleats first, to inflict pain on the opponent with the sole and cleats of his shoe.  That would be hard to prove, but, it would certainly qualify as a 9-1-2-b foul, if you could.

Robert

This is an excellent summary, thank you once again.