|
All,
here's my two cents...or better yet, here's my penny with a whole in it. Aboselli a.k.a teacher, is that spelled "whole" or "hole"???
Most of you sound like your brain is programmed with football rules. The only problem with being programmed is your brain can only function according to the rules programmed in your brain. In other words, you can't think. A programmed official knows only the rules. A thinking official knows the rules AND the purpose behind the rules. A programmed official calls all rule violations. A thinking official calls all rule violations that effect the game.
I agree that contact (slight) was made and by rule and definition the defender ran into the kicker. Now here is where the thinking comes in...contact was slight, partially caused by Nedney's movement. Nedney does his act to give the appearance of greater contact than initiated. Running into the kicker rule is to protect the kicker (safety) however a kicker may try to take advantage of this rule by trying to draw contact OR pretending to receive contact. As a thinking official, I am going to be looking for both to protect Nedney and to make sure I don't unfairly penalize the defense on a technicality (contact was made) that was not even a safety issue. There was no way Nedney could have been harmed from the contact he received. The reason Nedney fell to the ground is to give the appearance that he could have been seriously hurt but in reality HE WAS PRETENDING therefore his safety was not an issue.
Isn't safety the whole purpose behind this rule? If so, then what sense does it make to call it when safety is not an issue???
|