L
LindseyNelson
Guest
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.
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.
