Crap Tactic: What Would You Do?

[Welpe]

I don't think anybody is saying this is automatic, just that is what our judgment is. LDUB posted the relevant definition of a flagarant foul above and that is what some of us are basing our decisions on.

Not everybody agrees and that is fine.

[PS2Man]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I don't think anybody is saying this is automatic, just that is what our judgment is. LDUB posted the relevant definition of a flagarant foul above and that is what some of us are basing our decisions on.

Not everybody agrees and that is fine.

It sounds to me like he says it is automatic. If that is what he wants to call that is OK with me. I just do not agree with that point of view.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by LDUB

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.

Realize, this is your opinion of the particular situation. Some here agree with that opinion, some here do not. All your frantic stomping is not going to change anyone's mind about that. It's a judgement call that the covering official has to decide.

[PS2Man]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Realize, this is your opinion of the particular situation. Some here agree with that opinion, some here do not. All your frantic stomping is not going to change anyone's mind about that. It's a judgement call that the covering official has to decide.

I completley agree.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by 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.

Agreed. I just wonder if the BJ was able to pick up the way the offender was running to the line if he's focused on the kicker's line watching for encroachment. Since the offender hit the kicker so soon after the kick, I also wonder if the other players on K shielded the BJ at all. His first look at the kicker might have been him lying on the ground and wondering how he got there. The HL or LJ (or maybe even the R from down field) may have a better look at it. I agree someone has to get this for at least 15 and consider the ejection option which has been discussed to death. With the benefit of being able to watch the video several times, I guess I would lean toward ejection. It's the intent of the receiving team that bothers me the most.

Another thing to factor in here also is whether the kicker made attempts during previous kickoffs to cover the kick downfield. If he never did, then there is no reason for R to even block him. If he did kick off and then participate, then at least R could say they were taking out a potential tackler. That could factor into my decision if I saw this live.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: I agree with JRut here. I couldn't see very well the hit on the kicker. Needless to say, it was an illegal block. But is it a personal foul? Is it flagrant? Just because it offends our sensibilities doesn't necessarily make it deserving of a DQ.

I've seen blocks on the wall of a kick return that are absolutely "severe and extreme" and almost lift the defender out of his shoes. You know the kind where the defender turns to pursue the runner around the corner and a blocker is peeling back and lights him up. Is he in danger of being hurt by this type of block? Most definitely. Am I calling it flagrant? Absolutely not.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: I agree with JRut here. I couldn't see very well the hit on the kicker. Needless to say, it was an illegal block. But is it a personal foul? Is it flagrant? Just because it offends our sensibilities doesn't necessarily make it deserving of a DQ.

I've seen blocks on the wall of a kick return that are absolutely "severe and extreme" and almost lift the defender out of his shoes. You know the kind where the defender turns to pursue the runner around the corner and a blocker is peeling back and lights him up. Is he in danger of being hurt by this type of block? Most definitely. Am I calling it flagrant? Absolutely not.

I don't consider this flagrant because of the severity of the hit. I'm concerned because this guy did something unusual that is not normally seen in a football game only with the intent to injure this player. The blocks you describe are in the normal course of action blocking a player that is attempting to tackle a runner.

Severity of the hit comes into play somewhat. If he ran up and just got in the guys way, then I've definitely only got the illegal block (assuming it was within 5 yards or the ball had not hit the ground). But the way this guy took a running start directly at the kicker to hit him as soon as possible and as hard as he did could definitely justify a flagrant foul and ejection.

If this happened in a real game and I saw it though, I would probably be so stunned I might initially forget to throw my flag.

[LDUB]

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

Originally Posted by Mike L

Realize, this is your opinion of the particular situation. Some here agree with that opinion, some here do not. All your frantic stomping is not going to change anyone's mind about that. It's a judgement call that the covering official has to decide.

I understand that judgment can be different.

What did you judge was the reason for R to block the kicker in that fashion?

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

Needless to say, it was an illegal block. But is it a personal foul?

Yes, it is a personal foul. The kicker did not advance 5 yards before he was contacted. That is roughing the kicker which is a personal foul.

Originally Posted by Bob M.

I've seen blocks on the wall of a kick return that are absolutely "severe and extreme" and almost lift the defender out of his shoes. You know the kind where the defender turns to pursue the runner around the corner and a blocker is peeling back and lights him up. Is he in danger of being hurt by this type of block? Most definitely. Am I calling it flagrant? Absolutely not.

Do those blocks have to do with advancing the ball down the field? I assume A was blocking B to keep them away from the ball carrier. What was the reason the kicker was blocked in the video play?

[Mike L]

It doesn't really matter what the "reason" for the block was, what matters is what did the blocker actually do. Yes, he hit a kicker who was potentially in a vulnerable position. But was the hit itself "so severe or extreme" to rise to the very onerous penalty of flagrant. I don't think so. You think different, and that's fine.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Mike L

It doesn't really matter what the "reason" for the block was, what matters is what did the blocker actually do. Yes, he hit a kicker who was potentially in a vulnerable position. But was the hit itself "so severe or extreme" to rise to the very onerous penalty of flagrant. I don't think so. You think different, and that's fine.

You didn't answer the question.

What did you judge was the reason for R to block the kicker in that fashion?

[PS2Man]

Originally Posted by LDUB

You didn't answer the question.

What did you judge was the reason for R to block the kicker in that fashion?

I have no idea. Maybe the coach told the kid to hit the kicker and he did not know the rule. You have no idea what was or what was not the reason unless the kid tells you. The severity of the hit would not change the fact that this was a flag.

[MJT]

I really think that if you would eject the player in "that play" that your state association would back you up after seeing the video. You have to see ones like this on a play by play basis to know if you have an ejection or not.

[daggo66]

This is without a doubt a flagrant PF. There is one and only one reason for that block. It is meant to "take out" the kicker in one form or another. Either to injure him or to make him so concerned about being hit that he can't kick. Knocking down someone at that point when the ball is so far away is useless since the player can get back up and make a tackle. Therefore that is not a football play. If the kicker is the safety on the kickoff (which they often are) then there is sometimes someone assigned to block him. That person would normally be taught to shadow the safety and make the appropriate block when the time comes. This player was headhunting plain and simple.

[ajmc]

Woah, there's all sorts of "doubt" in your conclusion. Let's not forget this is HS football game and every now and then HS football players don't execute plans exactly as they're supposed to, or were told to.

There are any number of legitimate reasons for "that block", if it were executed properly in compliance with the rules of the game. You have no idea, "what it was meant to do" and your entire premis is based on suposition and speculation. Just for a moment, consider how many kick returns are ended by the kicker making a score saving tackle. What gives you the credibility to decide that the only acceptable approach is to, "shadow the safety and make the appropriate block when the time comes"?

If blocking was something that could be done exactly as pre-planned, at only the appropriate instant, football would be a much different game. Especially on a free kick, blocking is more of something you hope enough of the players can do well enough to allow your returner to escape the defenders who successfully elude your blockers.

This particular play may have been all you suspect, but you have no way of knowing ANY of that and your decision as to penalizing the action should be based on specifically what you observe, not what you imagine might have been going through the player's mind.

If the contact was severe enough, and of the nature, to earn first a penalty and possibly a disqualification, that should be determined by what you observe, not what you suspect, or worse, imagine.