Kicker definition question

[kentref]

The new definition of a "kicker" (a player becomes a kicker when his knee, lower leg or foot makes contact with the ball) appears to change the way roughing/running into the kicker may be called.

I'm looking specifically at page 12 of the Simplified and Illustrated book which says that if the kicker doesn't meet the definition of a kicker (i.e., misses the ball in the kick attempt), and if the contact by R is not "unnecessarily rough" then there is no foul.

My question: If the foul is "unnecessarily rough" can this only be a roughing the kicker foul? It appears the addition of the "kicker" definition and contact that is not "unnecessarily rough" combine to pretty much eliminate the "running into the kicker" foul in this situation.

Comments and perspectives?

[wisref2]

Not sure if I understand your question. If the guy doesn't kick it, he's not a kicker. Same as if a quarterback doesn't pass it, he's not a passer.

The new wording isn't really a change - it only clarifies the rule - doesn't change it at all.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: I agree with wisref...there's no real change to the rule. In the past, there were some misconceptions that a player who lined up as the punter was granted protection from the moment he began his kicking motion till after he regained his balance and could further participate in the play. As a result, if the kicker 'whiffed' and was then immediately hit, flags incorrectly flew. Likewise, there were occasions where a strong rush reached the punter before he could get the kick away. In the middle of his kicking motion--but before he actually kicked the ball--he would get creamed. Again, flags incorrectly dropped. This addition of the new text to the definition of kicker (NF 2-31-8) simply clarifies at what point a player becomes a kicker. It really doesn't change the rule--just reinforces what already existed.

[MJT]

This is a good reinforcement cuz as you have said Bob those were 2 cases where you would see flags down when there should not be. Even with the clarification I bet you would have to explain it to K's coach as he will be thinking there should be a flag on the ground.

[kentref]

Originally Posted by kentref

The new definition of a "kicker" (a player becomes a kicker when his knee, lower leg or foot makes contact with the ball) appears to change the way roughing/running into the kicker may be called.

I'm looking specifically at page 12 of the Simplified and Illustrated book which says that if the kicker doesn't meet the definition of a kicker (i.e., misses the ball in the kick attempt), and if the contact by R is not "unnecessarily rough" then there is no foul.

My question: If the foul is "unnecessarily rough" can this only be a roughing the kicker foul? It appears the addition of the "kicker" definition and contact that is not "unnecessarily rough" combine to pretty much eliminate the "running into the kicker" foul in this situation.

Comments and perspectives?

Thanks for the input and I agree with everyone's take on this. Let me then ask this question. If the covering official judges the contact by R to be "unnecessarily rough" then the foul in that case is a personal foul and not roughing the kicker, correct? Where I'm going with this is that if it is obvious that K is going to kick the ball does that change the way the Referee will judge the contact by R?

[Bob M.]

REPLY: kentref...here's my take on your questions:

1. Yes, if the contact is unnecessarily rough, you have a personal foul. Just remember that there's no automatic first down like there would have been if roughing the kicker had been the call.
2. I would not change the way I judged contact by B simply because he was trying to kick the ball.

In order for me to call it a personal foul, it had better be illegal personal contact. Just because it's a violent hit doesn't make it patently illegal. Since the punter still had possession of the ball, he's fair game and we shouldn't be getting into the trap of 'legislating' how hard he can be hit--as long as the hit is legal.

I cringe when I read posts that say things like, "since the ball was tipped at the line of scrimmage, the contact with the receiver can't be DPI, but it can be a personal foul." It makes me think that some guys are just going to make the PF call since the rules prohibit them from making the DPI call. I hope I'm wrong. If you're going to call a personal foul, make sure it's really a personal foul, not just a 'make-up' for some other call you're prevented from making by the rules.

[Jim D]

I agree with all of the posts. The key to remember is that , if the player hasn't become a kicker yet and he has the ball, he's a runner no matter what his intention is. He has no more protection than any other runner so a hard hit is just a good tackle. For it to be a personal foul would require something like a blow with the arm or fist, etc.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Jim D...that's the point I was trying to make. Don't lower your standards for calling a personal foul just because the alternative wasn't available to you.

Last year when the new Federation rule was made that you can't call DPI if the pass is thrown in a different direction from the action, we had a number of posts saying, "but it can still be holding." Yes...but there better be a grab and a restriction if you're going to call holding. If the receiver is shoved, don't call it holding just because you can't call it DPI. It's nothing...leave it alone. I guess I'm just paranoid about the way some of the posts were written.

[sloth]

Actually I've had two individuals and two different rules clinics give the same interperation to this rule. The biggest change is that a defender is given more latitude in his persuit of the kicker. In effect the protection afforded a kicker is the same as a passer. If a white hat is of the opinion that contact with the kicker was unavoidable then there is no flag, even if the ball was off and it was not touched by D.

In the past it was the responsibility of the defender to make sure he didn't make contact with the K. If he did and the ball was away, untouched, it was going to either be 5 or 15, no questions asked. Now, when there is contact with the K the white hat has to use the same determination as with a passer if the contact was late or unavoidable by the D.

I think this is a major change and I am concerned that this is such a dramatic shift in the protection afforded a K that most official won't apply the new interpretation.