Roughing The Snapper

[dhall31794]

Having officiated high school football for over twenty years, I understand that a lot of times officials understand and apply rules differently.  Such may be the case in this instance.  Please review this video and let me know as an official, would you have thrown a flag? The rule is pretty clear, "A defensive player shall not charge directly into the snapper when the offensive team is in a scrimmage-kick formation." The defensive guy lined head-up the center and attempted to shoot the gap, he didn't charge directly into the snapper. Look at his first step, it was to his left, toward the gap. That is definitely not directly into the center. The umpire had the best view of anyone to see that move. Maybe he thought that "charging directly into the snapper" meant just making contact. Also, a case could be made for the fact that the center had regained his balance and he made a move to lean into the gap to block the defender. According to the rule, he isn't offered any protection if either of those occurred.I would appreciate any and all opinions on this one.

[HLinNC]

As I understand the rule, no.  But then again I work wing.

[mbyron]

9.4.6A provides two criteria that exonerate B from roughing the snapper: (1) B may charge the gap, and (2) make simultaneous contact with the snapper and the lineman next to him. The problem is that the case play repeats that "simultaneous contact" is permissible.

The video shows a B player charging the gap, but not contacting the snapper and lineman simultaneously: he hits only the snapper. On that basis it's possible to interpret that as "direct charge" on the snapper and thus prohibited. But I suspect that many umpires would let that alone on the grounds of the "charging the gap" criterion alone.

[Atlanta Blue]

I coach snappers and not even I am expecting that to be a foul.

The purpose of the rule is to protect the neck of the snapper.  His snap makes him vulnerable to direct contact as his neck in not in a proper position of strength in order to take on a direct hit.

This nose guard doesn't make direct contact.  He goes through the A gap.  Yes, there is contact with the shoulder of the snapper, but that is not what the rule is intended to prevent.

[RickKY]

I would not have flagged this contact as it was not rough, and it also appeared the snapper was able to fend off the contact, which means he was not vulnerable. 

[Atlanta Blue]

Watching this again, I still don't think it's a foul, but I think what made it look worse was that the nose lined up directly on the snapper.  That's almost like putting up a flashing light saying, "Look at me".  At that point, some officials are going to think any contact is going to be direct contact.

Had he lined up in a shade technique and shot the gap it might not have looked so bad.

[110]

On behalf of the umpire's union, I apologize for a blown call. This was not even close to a penalty.

[InsideTheStripes]

That wouldn't draw my flag.

[AlUpstateNY]

Look at his first step, it was to his left, toward the gap. That is definitely not directly into the center. The umpire had the best view of anyone to see that move. I would appreciate any and all opinions on this one.

Perhaps the angle of this video is one of the reasons Roughing the Snapper is NOT the Referee's call.  As indicated, "The umpire had the best view of anyone to see that move" and perhaps he saw something that this video did not.

Why would an initial step towards either side eliminate being able to "charge directly into the snapper".  From the video angle, I couldn't see the initial contact.

 

[dhall31794]

One needs to understand that "directly" means "without deviation".  By stepping to the side, the defensive lineman clearly deviated from charging straight into the center.

From dictionary.com:
"proceeding in a straight line or by the shortest course; straight; undeviating; not oblique: a direct route."

mbyron got it right.  This is straight out of this year's NFHS Case Book:

ROUGHING THE SNAPPER
9.4.6 SITUATION A: From a scrimmage-kick formation, A1 snaps the ball to upback
A2 who is 3 yards behind the line and offset from the snapper by 1 yard. A2
runs for a 10-yard gain. Immediately after the snap started, B7 charges: (a)
directly into the snapper; or (b) into the gap between the snapper and the adjacent
A player making simultaneous contact with both the snapper and the other
Team A player. The snapper had not had the opportunity to defend himself and
was displaced by B7’s charge. RULING: In (a), B7 has roughed the snapper. If
accepted, the loose ball foul is enforced with a 15-yard penalty from the previous
spot and an automatic first down. There is no requirement that the ball be kicked
or that a deep back receive the snap. In (b), there is no foul. The snapper’s protection
does not include simultaneous contact with another A player, nor does it
take away the “center-guard gap” from B

[AlUpstateNY]

One needs to understand that "directly" means "without deviation".  By stepping to the side, the defensive lineman clearly deviated from charging straight into the center.

From dictionary.com:
"proceeding in a straight line or by the shortest course; straight; undeviating; not oblique: a direct route." [

We seem to have a lot of English majors officiating these days, but I still don't understand, "Why would an initial step towards either side eliminate being able to "charge directly into the snapper".  With all due respect to dictionary.com how does that step eliminate or prohibit, "proceeding in a straight line or by the shortest course; straight; undeviating; not oblique: a direct route.".

It may well have been this rushers intention to shoot the gap, but from the camera angle I have no idea where, how or on who the initial point of contact was made,  Then again, the camera didn't have the vantage point of the Umpire, who very likely saw something the camera didn't prompting him to flag the rusher.

[nolary]

Seems like a no call to me.

[dhall31794]

The snapper’s protection does not include simultaneous contact with another A player, nor does it take away the “center-guard gap” from B[/b]

The above quote is straight out of the NFHS Case Book.   AlUpstateNY, the defensive player was going into the gap as witnessed by his right leg's position with the center's right leg. If you will admit that the defensive player was shooting the gap, what else could the umpire have possibly seen to justify that flag? 

[AlUpstateNY]

The above quote is straight out of the NFHS Case Book.   AlUpstateNY, the defensive player was going into the gap as witnessed by his right leg's position with the center's right leg. If you will admit that the defensive player was shooting the gap, what else could the umpire have possibly seen to justify that flag?

I understand the rule, know what it says and don't doubt that the rusher's intention may have been to "shoot the gap", but I can't tell whether or not there was direct contact on the snapper by the rusher, before he got to "the gap" or before "any simultaneous contact with another A player" was initiated, and neither can you. 

I am suggesting the Umpire was in a position to observe that action, and may have seen something from his angle that is NOT viewable from the camera's angle.  Of course it's pure speculation, but he may have seen contact with the upper right side of the rusher, contact with the right forearm of the rusher or any other contact that the snapper's body shields from the camera.

Usually, when the covering official is in the proper position to make a call, is focused on the area in which a call was made, I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt that he may have seen something that a camera angle doesn't show. 

[RickKY]

I would not have flagged this for the following reasons:
1.  The contact in my opinion was not a direct charge,  but was in the gap, even though he contacted the A player.
2.  The snapper was no longer a snapper as he was able to regain his position to be able to ward off the contact, as evidenced by his successfully blocking the defender.

2-33-14 ....the snapper remains a snapper until he has had a reasonable opportunity to regain his balance and protect himself or until he blocks or move to otherwise participate in the play. 

This snapper did regain his balance, protected himself, and blocked the defender.

[Magician]

Watching this again, I still don't think it's a foul, but I think what made it look worse was that the nose lined up directly on the snapper.  That's almost like putting up a flashing light saying, "Look at me".  At that point, some officials are going to think any contact is going to be direct contact.

Had he lined up in a shade technique and shot the gap it might not have looked so bad.

I can't watch the video at work but I will agree with AB here.  If you are going to shot the gap I suggest you not line head up on the snapper.  Anytime I see that lots of red flags go up.  If you are going to shoot a gap, line up at least toward that gap and you'll likely eliminate the possibility of this flag.

[mbyron]

I can't watch the video at work but I will agree with AB here.  If you are going to shot the gap I suggest you not line head up on the snapper.  Anytime I see that lots of red flags go up.  If you are going to shoot a gap, line up at least toward that gap and you'll likely eliminate the possibility of this flag.

I doubt that the lineman's position (directly over the snapper or not) makes the foul more or less likely. Being directly over the snapper might give him his choice of gaps. And in any case, there's nothing about this in the rule.

[GAHSUMPIRE]

The camera angle shown makes it difficult to say with any amount of certainty, but based on the video alone, it seems the defender's initial charge was not directly into the snapper, and that the snapper was coming up to block when the contact occurred.

Based only on the video available, I would have to disagree with the foul called.

Having said that I sure would like to see either a higher level view or a view from the other endzone (more similar to what the U is looking at) to judge for sure.

I am not going to parse the different definitions, etc., but in my judgement, from the evidence available, that is not a foul.

[ret66482]

Does the snapper came up blocking or is it these bad eyes?