Roughing the Kicker
 

Good aftenoon Gentlemen, and you too Brad--

I had a friend of mine, who is a coach, show me a play that happened in his game over the weekend, and he questioned how the play was handled. Team A is lined up to punt. The snap is short, and bounces on the ground as the punter steps up to retrieve it. The punter fields the ball rather cleanly, and as he punts it, he is hit from behind by a defender. The defender does not make any contact with the ball. There is no flag thrown on the play.

The coach asks the R why there is not Roughing the Kicker on the play. The explanation that the R gives is that, because the ball hit the ground on the errant snap, there could be no roughing the kicker.

Thoughts?

Canadian Philosophy
 

CANADIAN PHILOSOPHY:

If the punter leaves the normal kicking position, he is no longer granted punter protection. The ball bouncing in front of the punter, with the punter stepping forward to retreive the ball, in my mind, is proper punting position, and by your description, he is still afforded protection.

This is a had to be there call, but from your description, and in Canadian football, I have a flag.

I think the R needs to spend some more time reading the rule book.

When is he a punter?
 

Keep in mind, the punter is not a punter until he actually punts the ball. (see 2.32.8) Thus, until the kick actually happens, no special protection is given. Since the contact happened with the kick, not after, I would strongly suspect that the R player was already committed and had no opportunity to avoid, nor since the snap was muffed, was he totally sure there would even be a kick.

I would rule no foul.

-Dave

I will add that I did see the play, and it was OBVIOUS that there would be a kick. The punter fielded it cleanly and went immediately into his kicking motion.

I would have to see the play again to see for sure if the hit occurred as he kicked, or just after he kicked it, but I know it was pretty close.

Normally I'd agree with you, but this doesn't jive with the explanation given by the R.

"The explanation that the R gives is that, because the ball hit the ground on the errant snap, there could be no roughing the kicker."

I can only speak for NCAA Rules which we use over here in the UK. But every clinic I attended in Europe or the USA, I was taught that a kick is still obvious if all the punter is doing is moving to recover an errant snap.
If, after he gets the ball, he then starts running around some, well then it is no longer so obvious.

NCAA AR 9-1-3 VI
Kicker A1, in a scrimmage kick formation, moves laterally two or three steps to recover a faulty snap, or recovers a snap that went over his head, and then kicks the ball. He is contacted by B2 in an unsuccessful attempt to block the kick. RULING: A1 does not automatically lose his protection in either case. A1 is entitled to protection as in any other kicking situation. When it becomes obvious that A1 intends to kick (in a normal punting position), defensive players must avoid him. [Cited by 9-1-3-a]

If the contact happened with the kick as you say, then there should be a flag. The defense must be aware of and avoid the vulnerable punter.

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".

I think what Raider was trying to say is that if the defender hits the punter as he is punting (or before), there can be no foul. As he stated, he is not a punter until AFTER he kicks the ball. As the play was described (contact as the ball is being kicked), I'd have no flag. Has nothing to do with being committed or not - what has actually happened is that the defender has contacted a runner - and that's legal.

Main point, however, is that a bad snap does not change the rule - the kicker maintains the same protection under high school rules.

Should the fact that the kicker was hit from behind affect the ruling? If the tackler came from directly behind, it may not have been obvious to him that the ball had been kicked.

Robert

REPLY: That may be true, but of what significance is it? He's still responsible for avoiding contact with the kicker once the foot is put to the ball whether he "knows" a kick has been made or not.

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?

I would not call it if he hit the punter before the ball was kicked

By rule, he is not a kicker till he kicks the ball so you have nothing unless it warrants a PF call.

Now it's completely different - no call (and the botched snap is irrelevant now).

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.

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