[Bob M.]

REPLY: Despite SWFLguy's opinion that he would probably be able to cover any roughing against the snapper, I still think that's the biggest reason for leaving the U where he is. Even if he could see it from the wing, it would be a hard call to sell from that distance, and more so from that angle. A few years back, we adopted the technique of putting the U under the goal post for tries leaving the LJ "home" to cover any fakes or broken plays coming his way. We figured that the U could definitely see action against the snapper and then turn his focus to the kick. Last year, the state association told us to abandon the technique. The reason: they were concerned that we would not be able to sell a roughing/no roughing call from that position, and consequently we were putting everyone in a situation where legal liability might come into play if a snapper was injured.

While I can see some of the merits of "balancing" the field better with sm_bbcoach's method, I'm not so sure that it will buy us that much. Using the technique that Mike espouses should give the LJ the ability to cover a punt properly, especially since his primary focus is on action in front of the receiver and the average varsity HS punter isn't able to kick the ball that deep anyway. The only benefit I can really see for putting the LJ downfield is a deep punt out of bounds on the LJ side of the field. He'd be in great position to mark the OOB spot.