The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 20, 2007, 07:53am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes
Let me add one more thing after talking to the R on the play. He said that he thinks that the defender had already made contact up around the shoulder pad, from behind, PRIOR TO the kick. How would this affect anyone's opinions/calls?
Now it's completely different - no call (and the botched snap is irrelevant now).
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 20, 2007, 08:55am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder
This is horrible advice. The INSTANT the kicker kicks it, he's protected. Oncoming rushers must know this and have it mind when deciding to commit. By the philosophy above, you'd waive off most RTK's, as most of those players are "already committed".
This is the exact interpretation that I recieved at the NKOA clinic two years ago. That was the year that the rule for what makes a kicker a kicker was changed. As described to us this was done to make the treatment of a punter the same if he was a traditional or a rugby style punter.

After some discussion, the basic rule of application was to be this. Think of roughing the passer in the same context as roughing the kicker. It doesn't matter if the passer is the QB or another player, the standard of protection is the same. This is the same with rugby versus traditional sytle punters. If you feel that the defender was unable to avoid contact you have no flag (unless its a PF due to the nature of the hit and not the timing).

I applied this standard at a couple JV games last year and decided that it wasn't worth it. Coaches don't understand it and neither do the players. I won't alter the traditional way I protect the kicker until the Federation does a better job of communicating the significant change this defination implies.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 23, 2007, 12:34pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by sloth
I applied this standard at a couple JV games last year and decided that it wasn't worth it. Coaches don't understand it and neither do the players. I won't alter the traditional way I protect the kicker until the Federation does a better job of communicating the significant change this defination implies.
There are ways a rule could be formulated that'd communicate what I think is the right philosophy -- though it may not be Fed's or anyone else's. I see 3 general cases:
  1. Someone trying to block a kick makes contact with the kicker.
  2. Someone trying to tackle the runner makes contact after the runner becomes a kicker.
  3. Someone deliberately hits the kicker, knowing he's already kicked the ball.
Case 3 can be penalized under general rules re unnecessary roughness. You can write a rule to make the standard more stringent for avoiding contact with kickers & passers, or just to call att'n to their special vulernability.

In case 2 the contact is justifiable.

For case 1, where by his action the player trying to block the kick concedes by his action that he realizes a kick is probably imminent, you can write a rule that applies strict liability to avoid contact.

Seems it should be easy enough to write a rule setting out the judgement standard by which you distinguish case 2 from cases 1 & 3 -- that is, does it look like the player is making a bona fide attempt to tackle a ballcarrier? For instance, jumping in front of the kicker would be prima facie evidence that the player is anticipating a kick rather than trying to make a tackle. Jumping to make a last instant correction while running at a dodging ballcarrier would be a distinguishable case.

Or you could just watch a lot of rugby and apply their apparent standards. The situation is analogous but not exactly the same there.

Robert
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
roughing the kicker? mark b Football 6 Mon Oct 30, 2006 01:34pm
roughing the kicker golfdesigner Football 5 Mon Aug 07, 2006 02:08am
Roughing the Kicker jlawyer55 Football 5 Sun Oct 23, 2005 05:54pm
Roughing the kicker DeltaRef Football 5 Tue Dec 16, 2003 09:20pm
roughing the kicker timharris Football 4 Sun Oct 12, 2003 05:23pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:07pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1