NFHS-Roughing the Kicker- With a tipped Kick

[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