Case closed on roughing the snapper

Much debate has arisen among fans and media over a roughing the snapper call made against Notre Dame. Both coaches have even weighed in on the subject. Coach Weiss said he believes the call was an "error." Coach Sarkisian agreed with the call, saying the violation was "blatant."

My review of the official rule and approved rulings, in light of available video evidence, confirms that the call was correct. Indeed, the video evidence provides textbook illustration for proper enforcement of the rule, and should be used as instructional guidance for all referees.

Rule 9-1-2-o states: "When a team is in scrimmage kick formation, a defensive player may not initiate contact with the snapper until one second has elapsed after the snap (A.R. 9-1-2-XVIII-XX)."

Approved Ruling 9-1-2-XVIII gives the following illustration of what is NOT a violation of the rule:

"Immediately after the snap, with Team A in an obvious scrimmage kick formation, noseguard B71 attempts to “shoot the gap” between the snapper and the adjacent lineman. B71’s initial legal contact is with the lineman next to the snapper. RULING: Legal. Incidental contact with the snapper after this initial legal contact is not a foul"

Watch video of the Huskies' PAT after Locker's touchdown run at 10:10 of the first quarter and you will see Irish NG Ian Williams #95 penetrating into the 'A' gap. In this particular instance I would agree with what Weis said: ". . . It didn't look to me like he was trying to go through the [snapper's] helmet."

However, if you compare that PAT with the roughing the snapper call made on the Huskies FG at 5:35 of the 4th quarter you can clearly see the difference between penetrating the 'A' gap and a full on bull rush by a 295 pound nose guard trying to go right through Huskies' long snapper #49 Danny Morovick.

Approved Ruling 9-1-2-XIX gives the following example of a proper call of roughing the snapper:

"Team A is in an obvious scrimmage kick formation. Immediately after the snap, nose guard B55 charges directly at the snapper, contacts him, and drives him backward. The ball is snapped to an upback three yards behind the scrimmage line or to the potential kicker, who instead runs with or passes the ball. RULING: Foul. Penalty—15 yards and automatic first down. The snapper may not be contacted until one second has elapsed after the snap when Team A is in a scrimmage kick formation"

The point of this approved ruling is to demonstrate that the snapper is protected whenever in kick formation, even if it turns out to be a fake kick. The key language is the phrase: "Immediately after the snap, nose guard ... charges directly at the snapper, contacts him, and drives him backward."

Weis might have a case for publicly criticizing the official's call had there been any inconsistency in the enforcement of the rule. There was no inconsistency. I have reviewed every FG and PAT by both teams. The rule was consistently enforced throughout the game and the call was only made on the one occasion where it was, as Sarkisian put it, "blatant."

In several instances the Huskies' NG lined up on the Irish long snapper's right shoulder--just like the Irish NG did when the roughing call was made--but the difference is that the Huskies' NG did not try to go through the snapper. The clearest example is on the Irish 21 yd FG at 12:51 of the 3rd quarter. This FG came at the same end zone where the 4th quarter roughing call was made and the NBC camera captures the action from behind the goal posts in both instances, giving identical perspectives for comparison. You see the Huskies' NG lined up on the Irish long snapper's right shoulder. At the snap he tries to penetrate the A-gap and the Irish long snapper is free to stand up and push him to the side. Once again, compare that to the Huskies' Morovick immediately fighting for his life against a full on bull rush where you can see the real potential for a whiplash injury as his head snaps back violently on impact.

Coach Sarkisian said it was "blatant." One could make a case for calling it "flagrant" which would have required disqualification of the Notre Dame nose guard under Rule 9-1-1.

[wpchief4]

it wasn't a PAT attempt, it was field goal. Besides how come its never called besides against ND. another case of a conference trying to screw ND

[AlumniHall98]

I'm sorry, but can anyone honestly say they have EVER heard that call made before? I am certain that this rule is violated all the time, and forgive me for not being a purist here, but there is NO WAY that call can be made at THAT point in the game!!! I mean, that was a call that essentially gives Washington the football game, if not for our stout defensive stance on the goal line. You just cannot make that call at that time, especially on a penalty that is SO rarely called, I bet most of the posters on this site had never even heard of it before. Just ludicrous, I don't care WHAT the rule book says!!

[tko]

the coach of Notre Dame football is Charlie Weis. anyone know Weiss? Walt Weiss used to play shortstop for the Oakland A's.

[kmoose]

Originally Posted by wpchief4

it wasn't a PAT attempt, it was field goal. Besides how come its never called besides against ND. another case of a conference trying to screw ND

The rule doesn't specify a PAT, PAT was used as an illustration of what is a violation of the rule. Any scrimmage kick (PAT, FG, punt) falls under this rule.

[no.1IrishFan]

The point is that if you watch 10 pat's or field goals, I bet it happens 9-10 times. There is no effing way you make that call at that point in the game unless the officials are trying to screw you!

[GO IRISH!!!]

I would love to hear from guys like Jordan Cowart or Braxton Cave about how often opponents wait 1 second after the snap until initiating contact with the snapper.

This is a bullshit call that probably happens all the time, but is rarely called. It's like a traveling call in the NBA nowadays. Everyone does it, but it only gets called a few times.