You make the call

[dumbref]

Scrimmage kick - K receives the snap and kicks the ball cleanly (no muffs or running). R dives trying to block the kick, makes no contact with the kicker but slides under the kicker. K’s left foot returns to the ground without contact - but as his right leg (his kicking leg) returns to the ground, he actually steps on R’s leg causing the kicker to stumble and fall.

Running into the kicker, roughing the kicker or no call?

I know this is one you really have to see, but I have painted the picture just as I saw it.

[BigFarns]

I give it no call.



Oh...an the subject line of your post made me remember the "you make the call" series when I was a kid. Those were great.

[BktBallRef]

Nothing.

[andy1033]

It sure wasn't RTK and to be running into the kicker you would have to displace him. looks like nothing to me.

[schwinn]

What's the rule say...something about no roughing if the contact is slight and caused partially by the movement of the kicker?

[booker227]

judgement call....no call

[JugglingReferee]

Nuttin'.

[chimpgym]

As you say, hard to call without seeing it.

But it sounds like running into the kicker.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Unless R's slide took out the kicker's plant leg (his left), I'd ignore it.

[dumbref]

Thanks for the opinions. I called running into the kicker on this play. My reasoning (though quick), I still deemed K a kicker who had not regained his balance. And while R did not directly initiate the contact, he invaded K's space to land. And contact direct or indirect, displaced the kicker. This was no "fake fall" by K - I've seen enough to know the difference.

I apologize if it sounds like I am trying to justify my call. It was close enough to make me second guess my decision and seek others opinion.

9-4-4 lists exceptions to RITK. C. “contact is slight and is partially caused by movement of the kicker.” is the only consideration (in this case). While I am not sure if I have changed my mind on this particular call, I do recognize the “kicker’s movement” plays a part in determining whether it is a foul.

Right? Wrong? I don’t know – just judgment. But it made me think. I hope it did the same for you.

[Rich]

Originally posted by dumbref
Thanks for the opinions. I called running into the kicker on this play. My reasoning (though quick), I still deemed K a kicker who had not regained his balance. And while R did not directly initiate the contact, he invaded K's space to land. And contact direct or indirect, displaced the kicker. This was no "fake fall" by K - I've seen enough to know the difference.

I apologize if it sounds like I am trying to justify my call. It was close enough to make me second guess my decision and seek others opinion.

9-4-4 lists exceptions to RITK. C. “contact is slight and is partially caused by movement of the kicker.” is the only consideration (in this case). While I am not sure if I have changed my mind on this particular call, I do recognize the “kicker’s movement” plays a part in determining whether it is a foul.

Right? Wrong? I don’t know – just judgment. But it made me think. I hope it did the same for you.

I agree with you. Based on your description, it would probably be a 5-yard running into the kicker penalty.

[JDLJ]

I would probably go with a no call but this is why experience is so vital in officiating. You can read the rule book a hundred times and it all sounds fine until you have a play that makes you question your call. That's when you go back and re-read the rule and discuss it in depth with others and you really, really learn the rule.

The next time you have a running into/roughing the kicker call again, you'll have a clearer idea of the rule an be much better equiped to call it correctly.

[l3will]

With the addition of "running into the kicker" as an option back in the 80s, I think, the referee has more choices for making a call. It was a lot tougher when the only choices were
roughing or nothing.

From what you described, I would probably have nothing on this particular play.

One situation I definitely have nothing on is the punter who does a nice pirouette (sp?) and then balances on one leg and then sticks his up leg into a receiver who is running by him... then does the prat fall for the world to see.

[JasonTX]

Originally posted by l3will
One situation I definitely have nothing on is the punter who does a nice pirouette (sp?) and then balances on one leg and then sticks his up leg into a receiver who is running by him... then does the prat fall for the world to see.

Does NFHS have a rule like the NCAA that its a foul for the Kicker to simulate being roughed or ran into?

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by JasonTX
Does NFHS have a rule like the NCAA that its a foul for the Kicker to simulate being roughed or ran into?

REPLY: Nothing as specific as NCAA 9-1-3b. It could still be called USC, but I'd personally just ignore it.