Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sloth
I applied this standard at a couple JV games last year and decided that it wasn't worth it. Coaches don't understand it and neither do the players. I won't alter the traditional way I protect the kicker until the Federation does a better job of communicating the significant change this defination implies.
|
There are ways a rule
could be formulated that'd communicate what I think is the right philosophy -- though it may not be Fed's or anyone else's. I see 3 general cases:
- Someone trying to block a kick makes contact with the kicker.
- Someone trying to tackle the runner makes contact after the runner becomes a kicker.
- Someone deliberately hits the kicker, knowing he's already kicked the ball.
Case 3 can be penalized under general rules re unnecessary roughness. You can write a rule to make the standard more stringent for avoiding contact with kickers & passers, or just to call att'n to their special vulernability.
In case 2 the contact is justifiable.
For case 1, where by his action the player trying to block the kick concedes by his action that he realizes a kick is probably imminent, you can write a rule that applies strict liability to avoid contact.
Seems it should be easy enough to write a rule setting out the judgement standard by which you distinguish case 2 from cases 1 & 3 -- that is, does it look like the player is making a bona fide attempt to tackle a ballcarrier? For instance, jumping in front of the kicker would be prima facie evidence that the player is anticipating a kick rather than trying to make a tackle. Jumping to make a last instant correction while running at a dodging ballcarrier would be a distinguishable case.
Or you could just watch a lot of rugby and apply their apparent standards. The situation is analogous but not exactly the same there.
Robert