NFHS-Roughing the Kicker- With a tipped Kick

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

3) Targeting

I can see that one as a PF, but not as RTK.

[jpgc99]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I can see that one as a PF, but not as RTK.

You can have Roughing the Kicker with Targeting.

If replay overturns the targeting, you would still enforce the roughing penalty. So the proper mechanic is to announce both.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by jpgc99

You can have Roughing the Kicker with Targeting.

If replay overturns the targeting, you would still enforce the roughing penalty. So the proper mechanic is to announce both.

This is a discussion of the NFHS rule.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by jpgc99

You can have Roughing the Kicker with Targeting.

If replay overturns the targeting, you would still enforce the roughing penalty. So the proper mechanic is to announce both.

As noted below, this thread is titled NFHS, but since you brought this up and it was on my mind from a recent game I watched, allow me to jump out of other board lurker mode and interpose something.

If the penalty is roughing because of targeting (e.g., not late just that he targeted and got there just after the ball was released) and replay determines that you were wrong about the targeting then you should have no foul, but if you've announced roughing with targeting it seems you're in a rough spot here.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by jpgc99

You can have Roughing the Kicker with Targeting.

If replay overturns the targeting, you would still enforce the roughing penalty. So the proper mechanic is to announce both.

But then those are separate determinations, aren't they? You don't have RTK because of the targeting, you have targeting in addition.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But then those are separate determinations, aren't they? You don't have RTK because of the targeting, you have targeting in addition.

How can you have dual penalties for a single incident? It would seem you could call two distinct fouls, which would be a multiple foul and the offended party would have a choice of prescribed penalties rather than an accumulation.

an exception to that logic may be INTENTIONAL Pass Interference, but there the additional penalty assessment is specified and designated specifically by rule.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

How can you have dual penalties for a single incident? It would seem you could call two distinct fouls, which would be a multiple foul and the offended party would have a choice of prescribed penalties rather than an accumulation.

Seems that's what it'd have to be, unless the meaning of "targeting" (which is defined, in a note) be subsumed under that of "roughing" (which is not).

Say...is this a situation in which having an opponent DQd would be a choice? In the course of administering a single penalty, the non-offending captain is never given the choice of disqualif'n, it's automatic if it's there. However, if it's a choice of penalties for a single act that was both roughing & targeting, would that choice mean they were deciding whether a player would be DQd? Or would you say one penalty is being accepted & the other declined, with the declined penalty (if it's that one) still having the automatic DQ'n?

[jTheUmp]

If a player has done something that's worthy of a DQ, he's DQ'd regardless of if the offended team choose to accept the penalty for the player's action or not.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

If a player has done something that's worthy of a DQ, he's DQ'd regardless of if the offended team choose to accept the penalty for the player's action or not.

Agreed, DQ is NOT a foul, it is an available penalty for a limited number of egregious fouls and behaviors, and is not part of the Captain's available choices.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Seems that's what it'd have to be, unless the meaning of "targeting" (which is defined, in a note) be subsumed under that of "roughing" (which is not).

Say...is this a situation in which having an opponent DQd would be a choice? In the course of administering a single penalty, the non-offending captain is never given the choice of disqualif'n, it's automatic if it's there. However, if it's a choice of penalties for a single act that was both roughing & targeting, would that choice mean they were deciding whether a player would be DQd? Or would you say one penalty is being accepted & the other declined, with the declined penalty (if it's that one) still having the automatic DQ'n?

NFHS, targeting isn't automatic DQ

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I can see that one as a PF, but not as RTK.

Didn't we just go through this question regarding Roughing the Passer? The reason "Roughing" penalties carry additional penalty is the added exposure and vulnerability of Passers, Kickers, Holders and Snappers related directly, and exclusively, to their function.

Essentially ALL Personal Fouls, directed to those specifically protected players covered by "Roughing" penalties, are and should well be, Roughing penalties, subject to the additional penalties designated.

NFHS: 9-4-5-a through d, itemize the exceptions (b, c & d would apply to "tipped" kicks)

[MD Longhorn]

RTK as the kick is leaving the punter... then blocked afterward near the line of scrimmage... would still be RTK.