Snapper moving ball forward

[ElvisLives]

(Made similar posting under NCAA, but this applies to UIL football, big time.)

A real problem we have that we need to get fixed is that snapper's will push the ball forward about the length of the ball when they address the ball. I have a sneaking feeling that they are taught to do that. We can't let them do this. Not only does it improve their field position - and in some very short yardage cases that could be critical - but, when done after some Team B players are down in their stances, can make it look as though those B players are offside. If we flag B for offside caused by the snapper moving the ball forward, then we have done the game a huge disservice.

The first time this happens in a game, make it a "talk to" after the down. Let the snapper know, in no uncertain terms, that he is not permitted to move the ball forward. He may elevate one end. He may rotate the ball to 'swap ends,' if he wants. He may revolve the ball on its long axis to get the laces where he wants them. But, he can't lift the ball, and it must have its long axis parallel to the sidelines when the snap begins.
And (Did I mention?) he can't move the ball forward!
The next occurrence of this, flag him. 7-1-3-a-2. Regarding the announcement, there is no simple "name" for this foul. Just explain (while giving S19), "The snapper moved the ball beyond the neutral. That's a 5 yard penalty. "x" down."

Wings have the best view of this, but the U can see this too.

Let's get this fixed.

[jwkde]

wouldn't you call it a "snap infraction"

[ElvisLives]

wouldn't you call it a "snap infraction"

That expression doesn't exist in NCAA football (although some aspiring NFL referees use it). If anything, you'd call it an "Illegal Snap." But, this is listed in the Summary of Penalties as "Snapper's position and ball adjustment," with reference to 7-1-3. "Illegal snap" references 7-1-1 (review 2-23).

But, neither expression tells anybody anything, so the game would be better served by offering that description, even if you did use one of those expressions first.

By whatever name or description, we need to get this stopped.

[Etref]

Actually need to start this during scrimmages, the snappers get used to doing it in practice and it becomes second nature

[ElvisLives]

Actually need to start this during scrimmages, the snappers get used to doing it in practice and it becomes second nature

[dammitbobby]

Had a JV game this year, where the snapper tried that.  Other team took care of the problem - noseguard dove on the ball, and they argued it was an attempted snap. 

[Looker44]

snapper knows what he is doing (either coached or a helpful uncle)... trying to get team b lineman offsides. I just tell him that 5 yards will be on you son as you advanced the ball. All you are doing now is giving them the advantage.

[bctgp]

I agree, get on it the first time it happens to warn them know it will be a foul if they continue. Also, the neutral zone does not change if the ball is advanced forward by the snapper, so we should not have any DOF fouls if the moving of the ball puts the Team B player "appearing to be DOF".  I'd like to see TASO include this topic in a Training Webinar that covers Team A actions designed to induce a DOF by Team B. There are a few other things we are seeing Team A do related to this as well. This would be a good follow-up to the recent TASO Disconcerting Signals/Movements Training webinar on Defensive actions designed to induce a FST.

[Etref]

A good time to address it is during warm ups. We are supposed to be watching them instead of Lollygaggin around. Watch the snapper when they run plays and let the coach know. Watch you punter and see how far he kicks to know where to set up. Watch the formations to see what they do.

[Phantomref]

A good time to address it is during warm ups. We are supposed to be watching them instead of Lollygaggin around. Watch the snapper when they run plays and let the coach know. Watch you punter and see how far he kicks to know where to set up. Watch the formations to see what they do.

Actually if the Officials Jurisdiction begins 30 minutes prior to the game it becomes almost impossible to see the formations/punters kicking/centers snapping the ball during warm-ups because by that time the teams are usually headed back to the locker rooms.

[ElvisLives]

Actually if the Officials Jurisdiction begins 30 minutes prior to the game it becomes almost impossible to see the formations/punters kicking/centers snapping the ball during warm-ups because by that time the teams are usually headed back to the locker rooms.

That is the situation in most games we see. Some folks will say to go out before 30 minutes, so you can make those observations. I'm not in charge, and this is strictly one man's opinion, but I strongly suggest that you DON'T go out before 30 minutes, with both teams on the field. I've talked about this before. If something were to happen, you are opening yourself up to being involved in litigation, either as a witness or, more likely, as a defendant. You need an example? OK, this is fictitious, but a plausible scenario:
You enter the field 40 minutes prior to scheduled kickoff, and begin checking the field, observing teams, visiting with chain crew, etc. Both teams are on the field, warming up. At 35 minutes before kickoff, Home 11 (star senior QB, committed to Alabama) and Visitor 99 get into verbal 'spat' at mid-field. With no physical provocation, V99 grabs and slams H11 to the ground, with H11 suffering a broken arm. Home coach wants a flag and DQ for Visitor 99. H11's parents want V99 arrested. You say, "Sorry, Coach, our jurisdiction doesn't start until 30 minutes before kickoff.

If you go out with both teams out there - other than to perform the requisite head coach's conference (especially in 2020, with COVID protocols) -  every plaintiff's attorney on the planet is going to claim that, by being there, your jurisdiction has started, and you accept responsibility for events that occur during that period. And, you should have seen this precipitating, and should have done something to prevent any physical interaction, and you should have penalized and disqualified V99. Your defense will be that your jurisdiction doesn't start until 30 minutes. A half-way decent attorney will make that argument almost a non-starter. Hopefully, TASO's attorneys will have a better counter-argument.

On the other hand, you don't go out until 30 minutes, and that activity has already occurred, you can point to the UIL's policy that your jurisdiction begins at 30 minutes before kickoff. Sorry, but you had no jurisdiction before 30 minutes, and didn't see any of the alleged action, and can't offer any help. TASO's attorney's will have an easy time with that.
IMHO.