Roughing the Kicker

[MD Longhorn]

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).

[sloth]

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.

[Robert Goodman]

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