Explain This One . . .
 

From 2009-2010 NCAA Rules and Interpretations

FR118 (9-1-2, k)

k. No player shall continuously contact an opponent’s helmet (including the face mask) with hand(s) or arm(s) (Exception: By or against the ball carrier).

There's another rule that prohibits pulling on facemasks and helmets, so that's not an issue. But I've seen an abundance of FM calls against players who have simply brushed a hand against a facemask with absolutely no change in direction of the carrier's head. Seems to me that coaches should be arguing this a little more than they have (I've never seen a coach request an on-field conference regarding this).

To answer the obvious question in advance: Yes, I'm reading the 272 page NCAA rules manual. Never knew that a snap doesn't have to go through the legs.

Dude you must be REAL bored to read 272 pages of rules.

LOL! My thought too...;) Maybe studying to become an official?

Getting ready for next season. I want to be more knowledgeable while I'm screaming obscenities at the officials.

so does that say I CAN mash the BALL carriers helmet?

the problem with arguing a face mask penalty is that it is a judgement call by the official, and not up for discussion.
The question is what is their interpretation of "continuous contact" as opposed to a glancing blow.
It's like arguing with a traffic cop that the light was yellow.

It could also be a "point of emphasis" that they are enforcing a zero tolerance policy this season.

I was an NCAA D-1 official (head linesman) for 11 years & the ego's of most officials is so large they have to walk through doors sideways.

you're one o' them thar young whippersnappers, eh

I was not a fan of the change from incidental contact to full-time personal fouls and this rule makes it sound like incidental contact is still allowed . . . perhaps the ego issue is why no one bothers to argue the point for fear of retaliation later in the match.

Haven't seen a non-standard snap except in old b&w footage. It'd catch a defense off-guard for sure.