Hurdling

[ftalerico]

Can someone please discuss what hurdling is? I just saw a video where it was called against a runner while the defender was was diving at the runner's feet. That sure doesn't seem to fit the definition of "hurdling".

[Rulesman]

Hurdling is defined in 2-22. Based on your description of the play, this doesn't sound like hurdling to me.

[Atlanta Blue]

Had the defender left his feet to dive at the runner, or was he still on his feet and headng low to make the tackle?  Big difference.

The defender doesn't have to be standing upright, but he still has to be on his feet.  Leaping (leading with a foot or knee) over a crouching defender who still has his feet on the ground is still hurdling.

[mbyron]

I'd never seen hurdling in a game. My crew flagged it twice yesterday, once on each team. I guess the runners wanted to be fair...

The first one we flagged, the coach was livid and demanded to know whether his runner was not allowed to protect his knees. "Not by hurdling, coach."

[mbyron]

I just saw a video where it was called against a runner while the defender was was diving at the runner's feet. That sure doesn't seem to fit the definition of "hurdling".

The definition prohibits hurdling an opponent "who is contacting the ground with no part of his body except one or both feet."

It's an interesting question whether this definition REQUIRES the opponent to have a foot on the ground. I think not: the purpose of the exception is to permit hurdling players who are on the ground (kneeling, lying, etc.). A player diving at the runner is not on the ground, and "is contacting the ground with no part of his body."

Another point about the diving opponent: the exception is not time-specific. If the diving opponent had only his feet on the ground prior to the dive, then he seems to be protected by the hurdling rule.

I just don't see the exception clause as imposing a new requirement on the opponent: think of the player who is crouching in front of the runner, sees him go up, and jumps a little. That's not hurdling?

[Curious]

The definition prohibits hurdling an opponent "who is contacting the ground with no part of his body except one or both feet."

It's an interesting question whether this definition REQUIRES the opponent to have a foot on the ground. I think not: the purpose of the exception is to permit hurdling players who are on the ground (kneeling, lying, etc.). A player diving at the runner is not on the ground, and "is contacting the ground with no part of his body."

mb, this sounds like circular reasoning to me.  The rule DOES require the opponent of the hurdler to have one or both feet on the ground.

Another point about the diving opponent: the exception is not time-specific. If the diving opponent had only his feet on the ground prior to the dive, then he seems to be protected by the hurdling rule.

While I agree there is no "time specification" mentioned in the rule itself, we should be able to infer that if his feet are not on the ground when the "hurdle" takes place, the runner should not be held culpable?

I just don't see the exception clause as imposing a new requirement on the opponent: think of the player who is crouching in front of the runner, sees him go up, and jumps a little. That's not hurdling?

[mbyron]

Not circular. The definition does not require feet on the ground: they're in an "exception" clause.

Think of it this way: the purpose of the exception is to permit hurdling when the opponent is DOWN on the ground. We permit hurdling in this case because most runners can safely hurdle an opponent who is on the ground. The rule specifies the idea of being "down" in terms of having something more than a foot or feet on the ground.

An opponent who is in the air is UP. Why would the exception apply to him?

[HLinNC]

Might want to turn those potential case plays in, mb.

[Curious]

Not circular. The definition does not require feet on the ground: they're in an "exception" clause.

Interesting take on this, mb; so help me find the "exception clause".  "Except" only shows up once in the definition or POE notes; and is, IMO, to provide clarity on the status of the runner's opponent - stating he (the opponent) must have one or both feet on the ground when the "jump/hurdle" occurs.

Think of it this way: the purpose of the exception is to permit hurdling when the opponent is DOWN on the ground. We permit hurdling in this case because most runners can safely hurdle an opponent who is on the ground. The rule specifies the idea of being "down" in terms of having something more than a foot or feet on the ground.

I don't find "down on the ground" anywhere in the rule or POE either.

An opponent who is in the air is UP. Why would the exception apply to him?

Why not?  He doesn't have one or both feet on the ground....

I do believe this can be argued from both sides; and I think HL has a good idea: to send in these plays for a definitive interpretation.

[bama_stripes]

Curious, don't you think an opponent who is diving can also be hurdled with minimal risk of injury to either player?  If the runner doesn't hurdle him, there's a good possibility of the defender's helmet hitting the runner's knee, with potential injury to both.

[Curious]

Curious, don't you think an opponent who is diving can also be hurdled with minimal risk of injury to either player?  If the runner doesn't hurdle him, there's a good possibility of the defender's helmet hitting the runner's knee, with potential injury to both.

Sure; if he actually hurdles the "diver", there would be no (or little) contact; and there is always a chance for injury to either player - hurdle or not.  Within the limitations of this scenario, the point I'm trying to make is that if a runner attempts jumps over a diving tackler, and that tackler has neither foot on the ground, the runner hasn't fouled (IMO).  Do you agree 'Bama? 

[bama_stripes]

I believe the intent of the rule is to prevent a player from jumping over an upright (standing or crouching) opponent.

[ftalerico]

The rule clearly states the opponent must have at least one foot on the ground in order for hurdling to be called.

[maven]

The rule clearly states the opponent must have at least one foot on the ground in order for hurdling to be called.

Where? mbyron quoted the definition, and it contains no such requirement.

[Atlanta Blue]

Where? mbyron quoted the definition, and it contains no such requirement.

The rule DOES say exactly that:

Hurdling is an attempt by a player to jump (hurdle) with one or both feet or
knees foremost over an opponent who is contacting the ground with no part of
his body except one or both feet.

For it to be a foul, the defender must be contacting the ground with one or both feet, and only his feet.

If the opponent isn't contacting the ground with ONLY one or both feet, then it isn't a foul.

So you may hurdle a prone player, a kneeling player, a bear crawling player, a diving player, a player standing on his head, doing a hand stand or suspended in midair by David Copperfield.  You can hurdle any defender EXCEPT one that has one or both feet and only one or both feet, on the ground. 

[KirbyB]

 

[ECILLJ]

I agree with the majority on this one. Sorry MByron, but a diving player with feet in the air does not meet the rule. IMO, this is a legal hurdle.

[mbyron]

The rule DOES say exactly that:

Hurdling is an attempt by a player to jump (hurdle) with one or both feet or
knees foremost over an opponent who is contacting the ground with no part of
his body except one or both feet.

For it to be a foul, the defender must be contacting the ground with one or both feet, and only his feet.

AB, I respect your knowledge of the game and of the NFHS rules. You might well grasp the intent of the rule better than I.

But as a matter of grammar, the definition simply does NOT require the feet on the ground. I think I can show why.

I concede that the definition is ambiguous, and adding 2 words might disambiguate. Here's the way most people here seem to be reading it:

Hurdling is an attempt by a player to jump (hurdle) with one or both feet or
knees foremost over an opponent who is contacting the ground with no part of
his body except AT LEAST one or both feet.

And here's how I've been reading it:

Hurdling is an attempt by a player to jump (hurdle) with one or both feet or
knees foremost over an opponent who is contacting the ground with no part of
his body except AT MOST one or both feet.

To anyone approaching the question with an open mind, the first definition is not redundant, and the second is not contradictory. That shows that the original definition is ambiguous.

This way of looking at it also suggests an easy fix for NFHS, should they wish to clarify the rule.

[wvwhitehat603]

Saw this called in the WV state championship game 2 years ago. Was a great call!!!!!

[Rulesman]

If you see a hurdle it should smack you like a 2 by 4. If you are looking for a hurdle, you are looking too hard for something to call. This should be one of those "make it REAL big" foul calls that jumps out and grabs you.

[Curious]

The rule DOES say exactly that:

Exasperating, ain't it?

Saw this called in the WV state championship game 2 years ago. Was a great call!!!!!

Exactly what did you see wv?  Hurdling called with the defender's feet on the ground; or with the defender in mid air?   

[SanDiegoStryker]

Ummm, yeah, I don't see why mbyron is confused on this. "Opponent who is contacting the ground with no part of his body except one or both feet" definitely means that the opponent must be contacting the ground. If he is not contacting the ground at all then the entire clause is false and therefore there can be no hurdling.

Maybe if you move words around? "Opponent who is contacting the ground with one or both feet and no other part of his body." Does that make it clearer?

[ECILLJ]

Timing a hurdle over a defender who is diving with both feet off the ground, would be a spectacular and nearly impossible athletic feat. This may fall short of gold medal status, like a ball going dead in A's end zone resulting in a safety, but it may we worthy of a bronze or silver medal.

[Curious]

Timing a hurdle over a defender who is diving with both feet off the ground, would be a spectacular and nearly impossible athletic feat. This may fall short of gold medal status, like a ball going dead in A's end zone resulting in a safety, but it may we worthy of a bronze or silver medal.

So we'll give him a ; but not a !!!!!!!!!!

[NorCalMike]

If the opponent isn't contacting the ground with ONLY one or both feet, then it isn't a foul.

So you may hurdle a prone player, a kneeling player, a bear crawling player, a diving player, a player standing on his head, doing a hand stand or suspended in midair by David Copperfield.  You can hurdle any defender EXCEPT one that has one or both feet and only one or both feet, on the ground.

I want to see the David Copperfield thing.