Kill the Punter

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Team A on it's 2 yard line, breaks one loose and is around the 50. Team B lineman sees this and punches a Team A player. The runner is tackled at the 10.

I'd think that a punch could be construed as fighting, then call an USC (with the ejection), which is enforced as a dead-ball foul. Then it doesn't wipe out team A's run. In the second scenario, both are dead-ball USC (with ejections) and the same enforcement applies.

As for cheap shots, I agree. If they are both live-ball, sucks for A.

[l3will]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Team A on it's 2 yard line, breaks one loose and is around the 50. Team B lineman sees this and punches a Team A player. The runner is tackled at the 10.

Situation 1) Nothing else happens - you have a live ball PF on B, and no score on the play. So B gets away with his actions (other than the ejection).

Both of these seem problematical to me. Change both punches to just cheap shots, and you don't even get an ejection - and B "gets away" with it.

I think I may be confused by this description... but wouldn't the personal foul on B be penalized from the end of A's run? So after penalty enforcement, first and ten for A at B's 5 yard line.

And even if you call the contact a personal foul, you still can eject the B lineman from the game under the last line of the penalty description in Rule 9-4.... "Disqualification also if any foul is flagrant - (S47)."

This would be true for a "cheap shot" too if you decide that the contact fit
the description of 9-4-3g. " Make any other contact with an opponent which is deemed unnecessary and which incites roughness."

[PaulJak]

Originally Posted by Suudy

I'd think that a punch could be construed as fighting, then call an USC (with the ejection), which is enforced as a dead-ball foul. Then it doesn't wipe out team A's run. In the second scenario, both are dead-ball USC (with ejections) and the same enforcement applies.

As for cheap shots, I agree. If they are both live-ball, sucks for A.

Suudy, I don't think you can call USC for fighting. PF's involve contact, USCs are non-contact fouls. You can still have the ejection for fighting but its a PF and not a USC (at least in Fed).

This becomes important because two USCs result in DQ whereas a player can have any number of PFs.

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by PaulJak

Suudy, I don't think you can call USC for fighting. PF's involve contact, USCs are non-contact fouls. You can still have the ejection for fighting but its a PF and not a USC (at least in Fed).

Indeed. I had always thought fighting was considered USC. It is swinging at (and missing) that is USC. Landing the blow is a PF (with ejection).

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

OK Robert, what if the ball is not being returned at all and the ball is being downed by kicking team. Is it OK to just hit anyone anywhere on the field?

If they appear to be trying to get towards the play, sure. They don't know "the ball is being downed".

Perhaps there should be some way to signal to everyone on the field that a fair catch has been signaled. Other than that, I don't see how you can say anyone is "out of play" in an open field situation like a kick from scrimmage. If they want to be protected, they should sit or kneel; otherwise, what are they doing on the field?

Robert

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by MadCityRef

Block, yes. Flatten? No.

Always get the safety fouls.

Whether a player is "flattened" is a function of his own action as much as that of the blocking player's form. Contact that might be perfectly legal could, depending on how the opponent plays, result in a player's being flattened as much as a KO punch. You can't officiate based on how a player reacts to being hit, only on how they hit.

The rules of the game are designed to discourage many forms of cheap shot by allowing players a chance to defend themselves against a hit; they don't guarantee that all players will effectively so defend themselves.

In this case it seems the player of team B ran a loop around the kicker, but the kicker just didn't see him coming. He may very well have been focusing too far downfield, plus the helmets do restrict vision. As with bicycle & motorcycle helmets, there's a safety tradeoff there.

Robert

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

If they appear to be trying to get towards the play, sure. They don't know "the ball is being downed".

Perhaps there should be some way to signal to everyone on the field that a fair catch has been signaled. Other than that, I don't see how you can say anyone is "out of play" in an open field situation like a kick from scrimmage. If they want to be protected, they should sit or kneel; otherwise, what are they doing on the field?

Robert

If a player is not running towards a play, anyone better be careful if they choose to take out that player. And if a player is clearly down, because they think the play is not over that does not give them the right to level an either. Now you can disagree, but a punter that is 40 yards away from a play and has not even attempted to go towards that play, is not just fair game. This is where experience comes into play and I think I can tell the difference between a cheap shot and someone actively trying to get involved in the play.

Peace