NFHS-Roughing the Kicker- With a tipped Kick
 

In what situation(s) can you still have a roughing the kicker with the ball being tipped?

Three that I can think of off the top of my head:
1) the player who commits the roughing foul is not the same player that touched/blocked the kick.
2) the player who blocks the kick makes contact with the kicker that the referee considers to be "avoidable".
3) Targeting

The case book addresses this very situation (and notes that it is NOT just the player who tipped the ball who may be ok, even if he hits the kicker).

9.4.5 SITUATION A:

K1 punts and R1 touches and partially blocks the kick. R2 does not touch the ball, but firmly contacts K1.

RULING: If R1 partially blocked the kick near the kicker/holder and R2 was near the kicker/holder at the time R1 touched the ball and R2 had already started his charge at the time the kick was touched, there would be no foul as a result of the contact by R2, unless it was unnecessarily rough.

COMMENT: The defense is responsible to avoid the kicker/holder whenever possible. In any situation, if the defense is to be excused for contacting the kicker/ holder as a result of touching the kick, the ball must be touched near the spot of the kick. A defensive player may not, even after the kick has been touched, stop and then renew his charge into the kicker/holder, nor may he change his direction and charge into the kicker/holder after the ball is touched. Touching the kicked ball is, in itself, not license to charge the kicker/holder. The defensive player will not be penalized if he has made an honest endeavor to block the kick and has either succeeded, or so nearly *succeeded that he touched the ball and in so doing finds himself in a position where he cannot avoid contacting the kicker/holder as a result of his effort. The rule does not specify that only the player who touches the kick is excused from contacting the *kicker/holder, rather it states, "when the defense touches..." (9-4-5b)

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.

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)

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

This is a discussion of the NFHS rule.

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.

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.

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?

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.

NFHS-Roughing the Kicker- With a tipped Kick
 

My goodness. If a kicker is hit with a foul that's targeting, it's roughing the kicker.

When a lineman is illegally downfield and commits illegal touching, it's technically two fouls. The choice is obvious, the enforcement is straightforward, and only the most pedantic would report both.

As far as giving a caotain's choice, only about 1 in 10 (if that) require any interaction as the choice is obvious.

To me, this is one way officiating has improved since I started 25+ years ago. Left tackle false starts, wing throws a flag, gives me a prelim from the spot, the U steps it off while I report it to the press box, and I'm winding the clock. All done in a few seconds.

NFHS, targeting isn't automatic DQ