Clarification of what makes a kicker a kicker...

[sloth]

I attended the Northern Kentucky clinic this spring. Julian Tackett was working with the white hats. As a memember of the Federation Rules Committee he was able to add some perspective as for the rules changes for 2006. One of these is 2-30-8. The change defines what makes a player a kicker..."A player becomes a kicker when his knee, lower leg or foot makes contact with the ball". Part of the discussion centered around how this was in response to the growing numbers of rugby style kickers. The thought being that a rugby kicker can scramble and then kick the ball on a dime and as such in the past, be afforded an unfair amount of protection from persuing defenders.

The main point that I got in my notes, and what my question to y'all is, is that kickers are to be treated like passers. There are cases when a passer just barely gets the ball away before being hit by defenders, and roughing is not called (when its judged that the contact was unavoidable). If this is extended ro kickers, it drastically changes how we protect the kicker.

I think in the past, a rugby style kicker was treated like a passer, by scrambeling he was treated different than a traditional drop back kicker. The understanding that I got from Julian was that a kicker is a kicker. Rugby style or not and that if the contact was deemed unavoidale by the white hat, you hold your flag; even if the ball got away clean un untouched by the defender.

I brought this up at the Indy Clinic today, but recieved no clarification. So I turn to the hive mind here to see what y'all think

sloth

[MJT]

It was mostly to clarify that if he has yet to kick to ball, you cannot have RTK. If he runs and kicks or does the rugby thing, he is only awarded protection if "it is reasonable that a kick would be made." Once he starts running, he is going to get much less slack from me. If he does not stop and it is pretty evident he is gong to kick, RTK will be a hard call for me to make. If he is running and kicks it and at the same time they are trying to block the kick, I will not call RTK. That is my take as an experience referee. I got the same kind of message at the rules meeting I was at a clinic last week.

[BigGref]

Originally Posted by sloth

I brought this up at the Indy Clinic today, but recieved no clarification. So I turn to the hive mind here to see what y'all think

sloth

How did you like the clinic? I was there with the umpires, Its my 3rd year going and have always picked up one or two things that have really helped.

[sloth]

The clinic was good. This was my third year as well...first time with anyone else on my crew in attendance. I agree that I pick stuff up at every one. Well worth the $40. My only complaint is the way the on field scrimmage was run. I think this is a limitation of the players being brought in, but it would work much better to to try and more realistically simulate a live action drive. I was fine with stopping the play when a player was wrapped up, but it is hard to communicate when you have a coach and a couple of his subs that are closer to the QB than the referee. I'd like to have the opportunity to run 4 or 5 plays in a row with the same sort of timing and flow as live action scrimmage.

The big thing I took from it was a discussion with Mark Boltz (sp?) on working the LJ position. In the past on close in situations, its always been my understanding and SOP to never "give" a TD away. If you see the ball carrier go into a mass of humanity on the goal line, but never see the ball cross; I'd always mark it short. Though being, better to call it short than to give a runner an advantage by assuming that he wasn't down. Baltz suggested that current though in the NFL was to have the umpire freeze the ball in a pile (upon the whistle) and the two wings are to come in. The determintion of TD or not is based on that spot of the ball...I actually challanged him on this a little bit. It just didn't sit right with me. I can see the logic in his arguement, and givin his extensive experience I'm really sort of chewing on this to decide if this is something I want to adopt.

I suppose that the real utility of any clinic...to make you consider different ways to officiate and new perspectives on rules interperation and an application.


As for the RTK interperation...I was glad to hear that was your interperation. I'm not comfortable with loosing the protectin guidelines on the K. I think doing so would be a safety issue. We all know there are coaches that encourage their DL and LB to hit the QB when they get the opportunity. The past tight guidelines on the K have prevented this, but I believe coaches will take a similar attitude towards going after the K if things are drastically altered.

[irefky]

Originally Posted by BigGref

How did you like the clinic? I was there with the umpires, Its my 3rd year going and have always picked up one or two things that have really helped.

I was also at the clinic in Indy and agree that it is well worth the cost. I was with the wings and listened to Mark Baultz philosophy on the goal line play. Myself, when I work U, I just give a good eye to the wing official and nod yes or no, then they will go up with the TD signal. That is the same way when I work wing that I get from my U.

I think it boils down to what your crew does or the state association wants you to do. I also heard that some U will point toward the EZ or field to give direction to the wing.

I think the NFL has a concrete philosophy with all their crews on this play and much others.

As far as the K, I agree with MJT, and also think most coaches will utilize this play and with a smart K, they will try and draw the RTK.

[Robert Goodman]

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

Originally Posted by MJT

It was mostly to clarify that if he has yet to kick to ball, you cannot have RTK. If he runs and kicks or does the rugby thing, he is only awarded protection if "it is reasonable that a kick would be made." Once he starts running, he is going to get much less slack from me. If he does not stop and it is pretty evident he is gong to kick, RTK will be a hard call for me to make. If he is running and kicks it and at the same time they are trying to block the kick, I will not call RTK.

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

[Jim D]

[QUOTE=sloth] The big thing I took from it was a discussion with Mark Boltz (sp?) on working the LJ position. In the past on close in situations, its always been my understanding and SOP to never "give" a TD away. If you see the ball carrier go into a mass of humanity on the goal line, but never see the ball cross; I'd always mark it short. Though being, better to call it short than to give a runner an advantage by assuming that he wasn't down. Baltz suggested that current though in the NFL was to have the umpire freeze the ball in a pile (upon the whistle) and the two wings are to come in. The determintion of TD or not is based on that spot of the ball...I actually challanged him on this a little bit. It just didn't sit right with me. I can see the logic in his arguement, and givin his extensive experience I'm really sort of chewing on this to decide if this is something I want to adopt.

If I can't see the ball on a goal line play, I will run in at about the 1/2 yard line and look for the U to help me find the ball. If he finds it in the endzone, he'll tell me and it's a TD. I'm not sure what you mean by "the determination of the TD or not is based on that spot of the ball". It sounds like it is based on that spot. It's the only spot we have on that play.

[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.