Vicinity of a snapper in "Planned loose ball"

[Farooq]

Planned Loose Ball
ARTICLE 7. A Team A player may not advance a planned loose ball in the vicinity of the snapper.

What is "vicinity of a snapper" from this rule? How far is this area? I assume it is a ground space between all neighbor players from center: QB under center, RG, LG, o-technique (Nose) tackle, 1 technique defensive tackles. In this area any planned loose ball play is forbidden. Ok. Well out of this vicinity offense still can execute planned loose ball

[CalhounLJ]

What exactly is a planned loose ball play ?

[Farooq]

What exactly is a planned loose ball play ?

its against fumblerooski I think
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkkUCn95xK8

[Farooq]

So if I a player intentionally fumbles backward out of this area there is no flag, right?

[HLinNC]

 You can fumble backwards all you want but the defense isn't going to just stand there and watch it.   It's hard to get a first down moving the wrong direction.  I've never seen a coach call an intentional backward fumble but I guess there's a first time for everything.


As to your vicinity of snapper question, you don't cite the complete rule reference but NFHS 7-3-Article 7 does not address planned loose ball plays.  NFHS 7-3-8 does and states that  ANY A player on his LOS may NOT advance a loose ball play in the vicinity of the snapper so I don't think you are discussing NFHS rules with us on the NFHS board.

[Snapper]

You can fumble backwards all you want but the defense isn't going to just stand there and watch it.   It's hard to get a first down moving the wrong direction.  I've never seen a coach call an intentional backward fumble but I guess there's a first time for everything.


As to your vicinity of snapper question, you don't cite the complete rule reference but NFHS 7-3-Article 7 does not address planned loose ball plays.  NFHS 7-3-8 does and states that  ANY A player on his LOS may NOT advance a loose ball play in the vicinity of the snapper so I don't think you are discussing NFHS rules with us on the NFHS board.

Yes, I believe he is asking you an NCAA question because he quoted NCAA 7-1-7 Planned Loose Ball:  "A Team A player may not advance a planned loose ball in the vicinity of the snapper."

My apologies for making this thread longer.  Perhaps the mods can move it to the NCAA section so that he can get a better answer?

But let me try to give him a quick answer in the hopes it's useful to him:


Farooq, you ask exactly what is the "vicinity of a snapper".  I don't believe that it's really defined.

I do know that the NCAA really wanted to get rid of the "fumblerooski" when they came up with this rule.  They really didn't like that play.

So my personal guess is that since "vicinity" isn't really defined, that most officials would basically interpret that as being the tackle box.

Go ahead and ask this over in the NCAA section, instead of the NFHS section, and maybe you'll get a better answer.

[Kalle]

In NCAA (and IFAF, too, in this case there is no rule difference), the fumblerooski play basically relates to the quarterback immediately dropping the snap on the ground behind the snapper. So, anything beyond say a yard from the normal QB position (for a hand-to-hand snap) is no longer in the vicinity of the snapper. Other cases are covered with the fourth down fumble rule (it is rarely beneficial for the offense to "fumble" in purpose on 1st through 3rd downs).

[Farooq]

Thank you for reply. In Eastern Europe we have international rules which are pretty the same with american college at this point.
Well, my colleague encountered a play where QB made a "second snap". QB under center received snap and literally put the ball backward on the ground between his legs.
Then guard folded behind QB's back and picked up the ball.
Like a classic fumblerooski with exception that QB fumbled the ball backward between his legs. I ve never seen anything like that "second snap" action. Thats why I asked about vicinity of a snapper.  I assume this action can be counted as a legal backward pass.

[Kalle]

Thank you for reply. In Eastern Europe we have international rules which are pretty the same with american college at this point.
Well, my colleague encountered a play where QB made a "second snap". QB under center received snap and literally put the ball backward on the ground between his legs.
Then guard folded behind QB's back and picked up the ball.
Like a classic fumblerooski with exception that QB fumbled the ball backward between his legs. I ve never seen anything like that "second snap" action. Thats why I asked about vicinity of a snapper.  I assume this action can be counted as a legal backward pass.

Yes, IFAF rules are mostly a copy of the NCAA rules, that's why us European officials can discuss plays here in the NCAA forum with only a couple of caveats (most of which are administrative).

This does sound like an attempt of the QB to fool the defense into thinking that he still has the ball immediately after the snap, so I'd say this is illegal. Cannot say for sure without a video. If the QB hands off the ball backward then it is legal, but if the ball goes into the ground, then not.

[Farooq]

This does sound like an attempt of the QB to fool the defense into thinking that he still has the ball immediately after the snap, so I'd say this is illegal. Cannot say for sure without a video. If the QB hands off the ball backward then it is legal, but if the ball goes into the ground, then not.

Thanks for judging. I need to react on this play if that team will try it when I officiate the game. If they appeal that ball was grounded out of vicinity of snapper what are my counter arguments? Any "planned loose ball" play is illegal or what? Vicinity doesnt matter?

[Kalle]

Thanks for judging. I need to react on this play if that team will try it when I officiate the game. If they appeal that ball was grounded out of vicinity of snapper what are my counter arguments? Any "planned loose ball" play is illegal or what? Vicinity doesnt matter?

Well, if the QB takes a full step, then I'd be inclined to say that he is no longer in the vicinity of the snapper. But this is probably not what they want to do.

[Farooq]

Well, if the QB takes a full step, then I'd be inclined to say that he is no longer in the vicinity of the snapper. But this is probably not what they want to do.

Yes he dropped back a bit from what I heard and only then stroke ball backward on the ground between his legs. Guard pulled behind him and recovered the ball somewhere 3 yards from his original position on LOS. They faked buck sweep to A-Gap to hide "second snap" and linemen flew to direction opposite of Guard's run

[bossman72]

Yes he dropped back a bit from what I heard and only then stroke ball backward on the ground between his legs. Guard pulled behind him and recovered the ball somewhere 3 yards from his original position on LOS. They faked buck sweep to A-Gap to hide "second snap" and linemen flew to direction opposite of Guard's run

Would love to see the play on film.

Your link to the fumblerooski video is exactly what the rule was intended to get rid of.

[Farooq]

Would love to see the play on film.

Your link to the fumblerooski video is exactly what the rule was intended to get rid of.

My guess they tried to modify fumblerooski and outmaneuver this rule.
If you ask me this rule must be edited. There must be sentence "A Team A player may not advance a planned loose ball." without vicinity

[ElvisLives]

My guess they tried to modify fumblerooski and outmaneuver this rule.
If you ask me this rule must be edited. There must be sentence "A Team A player may not advance a planned loose ball." without vicinity

Unnecessary to modify the rule. The risk involved with deliberately placing the ball on the ground at some other location on the field is simply too great to be worth attempting. The chance of success is very, very low. The current rule addresses the only set of conditions that gives Team A reasonable assurance of success after placing the ball on the ground. But, as others have said, the Rules Committee, long ago, determined this tactic to be outside the realm of sportsmanship that is desired for the game, and made it illegal. But, if they run a sweep and want to try to put the ball on the ground just before they get to the corner, for another guy running in the opposite direction to try to pick up and run with, they can have at it. Or, have the QB take a two step drop, then place the ball on the ground for somebody else to pick up and run with - go for it and see what happens. They will, most likely, try such a tactic only once. There is no doubt in my mind they will fail miserably.

The rule is good, as it is. We just have to recognize it, and rule appropriately.