Crap Tactic: What Would You Do?

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Flagrant foul for what, a hard hit? Do you call flagrant fouls for other personal fouls not specifically subscribed by the rules?

Unless I saw something like leading with the head or some other addition to this contact, calling this a flagrant foul all by itself is a stretch. And you cannot see anything I just suggested on this tape.

Originally Posted by bossman72

Amen. This was just a hard hit- not a flagrant hit.

This is more than just an average hard hit.

First off it is a roughing foul. Roughing fouls are in place because under certain situations come players are placed in defenseless positions and therefore are at a high risk of injury.

Now when you watch the video the only reason the R player is running up there is because he intends to intentionally rough the kicker. I would say intentionally roughing a kicker or holder that hard on a scrimmage kick would have a good chance of being an ejection. At least on a scrimmage kick R has a good reason to be near the kicker as they have a chance at blocking the kick. This was a free kick, there is no reason to be anywhere near the kicker.

This is an obvious attempt by R to put the hardest hit possible on someone, who is protected by rule because he is in a vulnerable position, with the hopes of injuring him so he will no be able to preform his duties as QB while the team is on offense.

There is no way the player should not be disqualified.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by LDUB

This is more than just an average hard hit.

First off it is a roughing foul. Roughing fouls are in place because under certain situations come players are placed in defenseless positions and therefore are at a high risk of injury.

Now when you watch the video the only reason the R player is running up there is because he intends to intentionally rough the kicker. I would say intentionally roughing a kicker or holder that hard on a scrimmage kick would have a good chance of being an ejection. At least on a scrimmage kick R has a good reason to be near the kicker as they have a chance at blocking the kick. This was a free kick, there is no reason to be anywhere near the kicker.

This is an obvious attempt by R to put the hardest hit possible on someone, who is protected by rule because he is in a vulnerable position, with the hopes of injuring him so he will no be able to preform his duties as QB while the team is on offense.

There is no way the player should not be disqualified.

In your game you can do what ever you like.

But just based on the violence of the hit is not in my opinion a very good indicator to eject or not to eject, when we do not eject players for similar violent illegal contact. Unless I saw a player plant their helmet under the chin of the kicker, then I would not say that this is a flagrant offense. It could be, but not automatic and certainly not based on what you have said. We see violent cheap hits on punters, quarterbacks and even late hits and I do not see many people advocating an ejection on those plays. Now if he went for his legs maybe you could convince me, but the shot was only cheap because the rules say that the kicker must go 5 yards or get their balance. Outside of that, nothing is inherently illegal about the hit. In my opinion that does not make it a flagrant offense (automatically).

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

The video:

YouTube - Taysom gets rocked

CANADIAN RULING:

Flag for R offside and R unnecessary roughness. The UR could be RP.

K option to re-kick 20 (30=RP) yards up, or give the R the ball, 15 (25=RP) yards back.

[OverAndBack]

It's a dickhead hit. But I don't know that it's flagrant. It's illegal because of where it occurs on the field and probably shouldn't have occurred because of the possible encroachment.

It's a hard hit on a player who probably wasn't 100% ready for it (that's why that rule exists - because the kicker is in a vulnerable position).

But flagrant? I don't know. If it's in the head area or leading with the helmet or below the waist or something like that, then it's one thing. But the force of the hit itself doesn't make it flagrant.

Football is an aggressive sport. Players hit hard. Just hitting someone real hard doesn't always make it flagrant.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But just based on the violence of the hit is not in my opinion a very good indicator to eject or not to eject, when we do not eject players for similar violent illegal contact.

I never said anything about that. What you have in this play is R intentionally roughing the kicker. This is not the normal type of roughing the kicker which you see on scrimmage kicks where R is attempting to block the kick and just happened to violently contact the kicker. In this play the only reason R was anywhere near the kicker was because he intended to commit a roughing foul.

Not only do we have R intentionally hitting a defenseless player, but he is intending to injure him with the hopes that he won't be able to play QB on offense.

R is intentionally committing a foul against a defenseless player with the hopes of injuring him. The reason the kicker was blocked had nothing to do with advancing the ball towards the goal line, the reason he was hit was to injure him.

The definition of a flagrant foul is "a foul so severe or extreme that it places an opponent in danger of serious injury..." That is exactly what happened. The kicker was placed in danger of serious injury when R fouled him.

1. Was the contact a foul? Yes.
2. Did it place the kicker in danger of serious injury? Yes.
3. Was R hoping to injure the kicker? Yes.

Question 3 isn't even a requirement for a flagrant foul, but you can factor it into your decision. I don't see how anyone could defend not ejecting the R player.

[bisonlj]

If I saw that play in a game I would probably eject the player. It's one thing if you start in the normal standing position and then cross the receiver line to hit a kicker after he has kicked it. This player took a running start and hit the kicker a second or two after he kicked it. That was extra-ordinary and definitely flagrant.

I'm guessing the coach will eventually get an USC for loudly complaining about your foul.

One problem I see with calling this during the game though is it's possible neither the BJ or LJ could see the hit. The BJ is watching for encroachment on the kicking team and the kicking team is not that far beyond the kicker when he was hit. The LJ is keying on the other R blockers going down field. Since it happened so quickly in the middle of the K players, they may not have seen it until after the kicker was hit. If you didn't see him get hit, you can't assume how he got there.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by LDUB

I never said anything about that. What you have in this play is R intentionally roughing the kicker. This is not the normal type of roughing the kicker which you see on scrimmage kicks where R is attempting to block the kick and just happened to violently contact the kicker. In this play the only reason R was anywhere near the kicker was because he intended to commit a roughing foul.

Not only do we have R intentionally hitting a defenseless player, but he is intending to injure him with the hopes that he won't be able to play QB on offense.

R is intentionally committing a foul against a defenseless player with the hopes of injuring him. The reason the kicker was blocked had nothing to do with advancing the ball towards the goal line, the reason he was hit was to injure him.

The definition of a flagrant foul is "a foul so severe or extreme that it places an opponent in danger of serious injury..." That is exactly what happened. The kicker was placed in danger of serious injury when R fouled him.

1. Was the contact a foul? Yes.
2. Did it place the kicker in danger of serious injury? Yes.
3. Was R hoping to injure the kicker? Yes.

Question 3 isn't even a requirement for a flagrant foul, but you can factor it into your decision. I don't see how anyone could defend not ejecting the R player.

As I said you can do what you like in a game. I guess if a punter is roughed, we should consider ejection because serious injury is a possibility.

And I really do not care if you cannot see someone defending anything, there is a reason why some people work and keep working and others look for problems. I think if you ejected a player for this one act without helmet contact or lower leg contact, then you really might have to explain that issue of being too technical. I was in a game on Saturday where a kid dislocated his knee trying to go for the extra yard. I guess we should eject the players tackling him because he actually got seriously hurt.

It is called judgment and like I said I saw similar things like this before. That does not mean it will be an automatic ejection.

Peace

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I guess if a punter is roughed, we should consider ejection because serious injury is a possibility.

Did you read what I said?

"This is not the normal type of roughing the kicker which you see on scrimmage kicks where R is attempting to block the kick and just happened to violently contact the kicker."

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I was in a game on Saturday where a kid dislocated his knee trying to go for the extra yard. I guess we should eject the players tackling him because he actually got seriously hurt.

Did you read my 3 questions? What was question #1? If it isn't a foul then you're never going to eject anyone.

[Welpe]

Bison, per the Fed Mechanics manual, the BJ is responsible for watching initial blocks against the kicker and holder (if present). My thought on this play especially is that somebody has to pick it up, the action the offender before the kick is too conspicuous to not take a look at him.

[OverAndBack]

The rule book clearly gives you an out in this instance in that it's 15 for starters because he contacted the kicker prior to him going five yards. So you're safe there.

If that's not enough of a deterrent, then you know they're headhunting. I'd suggest strongly to the coach that a similar contact on the next or a later kickoff would result in not only the ejection of the player, but the coach as well. If you can do that.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by LDUB

Did you read what I said?

"This is not the normal type of roughing the kicker which you see on scrimmage kicks where R is attempting to block the kick and just happened to violently contact the kicker."

I get it. You said something so it must be true. Thanks for the heads up.

Originally Posted by LDUB

Did you read my 3 questions? What was question #1? If it isn't a foul then you're never going to eject anyone.

Just because you raise a question, does not make it valid.

Look this is all about judgment. If you want to eject someone for this act only, go right ahead. I am not the person you have to answer to. You on the other hand will have to answer to your people. And when you do, all that matters is what they say. Same applies to me. I have no problem by making a judgment that I can only make on a tape and not in person, to just call a PF for this act based on what I see. If you have any other further information specific, I might reconsider. And I am sorry but the violence of the hit alone does not change my mind. There are a lot of late or cheap hits that I never eject players for. This is no exception.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by LDUB

I never said anything about that. What you have in this play is R intentionally roughing the kicker. This is not the normal type of roughing the kicker which you see on scrimmage kicks where R is attempting to block the kick and just happened to violently contact the kicker. In this play the only reason R was anywhere near the kicker was because he intended to commit a roughing foul.

Not only do we have R intentionally hitting a defenseless player, but he is intending to injure him with the hopes that he won't be able to play QB on offense.

R is intentionally committing a foul against a defenseless player with the hopes of injuring him. The reason the kicker was blocked had nothing to do with advancing the ball towards the goal line, the reason he was hit was to injure him.

The definition of a flagrant foul is "a foul so severe or extreme that it places an opponent in danger of serious injury..." That is exactly what happened. The kicker was placed in danger of serious injury when R fouled him.

1. Was the contact a foul? Yes.
2. Did it place the kicker in danger of serious injury? Yes.
3. Was R hoping to injure the kicker? Yes.

Question 3 isn't even a requirement for a flagrant foul, but you can factor it into your decision. I don't see how anyone could defend not ejecting the R player.

Well said.

[bigjohn]

It is FLAGRANT because his intent was to hurt the player! No way should the kicker be hit that soon after he kicks and someone not have to pay.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I get it. You said something so it must be true. Thanks for the heads up.

I say this is different than scrimmage kick situations then you say we might as well start ejecting for scrimmage kick fouls as well. I already said that they were completely different.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Just because you raise a question, does not make it valid.

Considering the definition of a flagrant foul is "a foul..." it made perfect sense to ask if the contact was a foul. It is hard to say my question for what constitutes a flagrant foul is not valid when I am quoting the definition of a flagrant foul.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And I am sorry but the violence of the hit alone does not change my mind. There are a lot of late or cheap hits that I never eject players for. This is no exception.

You missed the point. I said the violence wasn't important. How many of those hits involved intent to injure?

[PS2Man]

I also do not see the the flagrant nature of this foul either. I am reading a lot of personal feelings but nothing by rule that makes this an automatic foul. I think you are reaching to call this a flagrant act. I am not seeing this point of view either.