Clarification of what makes a kicker a kicker...

[MJT]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Sorry to come upon this thread a year late. My att'n was called to it by the software from another thread.


That's interesting. Wouldn't the fact that an opponent making contact was trying to block the kick be evidence that the kick was anticipated by that opponent? While if the player was just trying to tackle the runner, that would be evidence that a kick was not expected?

Robert

Robert, I am a R in HS and college and most R's will do exactly what I stated as far as having less of a chance of RTK if the guy is on the run and kicks it quickly while on the run.

Now I agree that if a guy lays out to block a kick, then it was pretty obvious that a kick would be made and if he took out the kicker, we'd have RTK. I think the flexibility comes when the defense is about to get to the runner/kicker, he quickly decides to kick the ball, so the defender sticks his hand out to block it but doesn't get it blocked and then there is contact. In that scenario I think RTK is less likely to be called.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Another reason for the kicker definition clarification was that there were cases of punters muffing the snap, picking up the ball, and getting hit by the defense while they were attempting to kick the ball but before the foot met leather. Unfortunately, some of these situations were being flagged as roughing the kicker.

[sloth]

I've had a year and a hlaf to reflect on this since my last post. I have decided that in the games i do, I am not going to change the way I have treated the kicker protection prior to the re-clarification of the rule.

After the clinic I mentioned and other discussions I decided to keep the new interperation in my mind for a play where it came up. Sure enough, I had a JV game wheer I was wearingt he white hat. Clean snap, punter took a three step approach, cleanly kicks the ball, but due to holding the ball a long time, a defender was in the air extended to block the kick. Contact is made and the kicker goes down hard (not hurt just solid contact). I think to myself, if this was a pass and the kicker was a passer, would I throw the flag. Definately not, so I held the flag. I reflected on that for a while and decided that I didn't feel right making that call that way only on a re-interperation of a rule.

I can appreciate the desire to make the treatment of a kicker consistant (as to address the rugby style kickers and the muff type situations. I appreciate that not I have a tool to defend no flag when either of those situations arise...but I can't bring myself to not give that protection to a kicker when he has made no sign of desception or deviation from a normal punt routine.

Maybe if the federation comes down and make a more specifically spell out the implications I will change my stance...btu right now I don't want to be the lone ranger ion this as an official. And I can assure you, all the other officials I've spokne with around here have not altered the way the protect the kicker.