Crap Tactic: What Would You Do?

[OverAndBack]

Look, I think we can all figure out that this was more than just a (wink-wink, nudge-nudge) "block." There's pretty much no question in my mind (at least, as someone a thousand miles away) what the intent of the whole deal was.

But I'm not sure we can flag or eject people for malicious intent, can we? Unless they actually do something that's not within the rules? We judge intent on intentional grounding, right, in some instances? They took intent out of the spearing rule a couple of years back. I'm not sure they want us reading minds, even if a reasonable official for whom this is not his first rodeo can figure out that R is headhunting.

The hit was hard - no question. If that exact same hit (same force, same delivery, same point of impact) happens ten yards farther downfield, is it a foul? Kids get blown up all the time on kickoffs and punts.

Now, you've got a foul for contacting the kicker before he goes 5 yards or sets himself to be able to participate in the play. No question. That's 15. It's possible (it's real close) that R encroached on the play (looks like he hits the 50 about simultaneously with the kick, but only the LJ would know for sure). Those are both fouls.

But the hit itself? Well, you'd have to be there. You'd have to be experienced, you'd have to, in your judgment, believe it was a flagrant hit.

Now, if I'm K's coach, I do one of two things: I tell my kicker to run up to the ball on the next kickoff and stop a yard short and see if R encroaches and keep doing it until they stop sending that guy on the fly trying to get to the kicker as quickly as possible. OR I put my biggest lineman on the kickoff team right next to the kicker and say "That guy is YOUR responsibility" and have HIM blow R up. We'd see how long that tactic lasted.

A third possibility is to keep my Stanford-bound QB in the game and throwing in the 4th quarter if I had a big lead. His team won the game, 26-13 as it was.

[bigjohn]

g. Make any other contact with an opponent which is deemed unnecessary
and which incites roughness

c. Flagrant — a foul so severe or extreme that it places an opponent in danger
of serious injury, and/or involves violations that are extremely or persistently
vulgar or abusive conduct.

[PS2Man]

If that was the case then the rules would make this a flagrant foul all by itself. Any other part of the field this play is completely legal.

[ajmc]

I think NF 2.16.2.c (The NFHS definition of "Flagrant") is a perfect example of, yet another, NFHS rule that recognizes and relies on the common sense, understanding of the game and judgment of competent officials to appropriately enforce rules designed to achieve specific, broad objectives.

The ambiguity is no accident, rather it provides the flexibility necessary to match a specific action against a general, reasonable to understand, standard that can be applied to a never ending variety of different actions.

That judgment is placed, soley, in the hands of the individual official observing a particular action, and anyone who dares to speculate about how close they can get to where that fine line may have been drawn, does so at the risk of great peril.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

g. Make any other contact with an opponent which is deemed unnecessary and which incites roughness

You could say unnecessary, sure.

c. Flagrant — a foul so severe or extreme that it places an opponent in danger of serious injury, and/or involves violations that are extremely or persistently vulgar or abusive conduct.

And I guess you could say flagrant, yeah. Now, it doesn't say a tackle or a block so severe that it places an opponent in danger of serious injury. It may be overlooked in history, but I am not sure a foul was called on this play, was it?



The block or tackle can be clean and just really, really hard. That's just physics.

The reason the hit is a foul is because of where it occured on the field (less than five yards from the spot of the kick, and on the kicker). Is the same exact hit five yards downfield, or on a cornerback if you're a fullback leading a sweep, a foul simply by virtue of the impact of the hit itself?

I can't say saying, "Now, now, son, don't hit your opponent quite so hard, what do you think this is, football?"

Football is an aggressive/semi-barbaric game by its very nature. People get hit hard. It's not always a foul, much less flagrant. If it's at the head or the knee or late or a Charles Martin situation, absolutely.

Bottom line: this was an asshat move. I don't think there's any question why it was done, but we're not supposed to be mind-readers all the time. The hit is a foul because of where and when it occured. If you wanted to call flagrant and eject him, you may very well be within your rights and may very well be able to sleep quite well. But you might have some 'splainin' to do. If you can make your case and the powers that be are with you, great.

Like I said, though, there are also other ways around the situation and ways to stop it from happening again that don't necessarily have to come from us. Coaches have a responsibility to keep their teams from being put in disadvantageous situations, too.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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"?

The R player ran right between two K players, who were running down the field, to get to the kicker who was just standing there. If R was really trying to prevent K from getting to the ball carrier wouldn't it make more sense to block someone running towards the ball rather than someone just standing there?

I understand that people might disagree on whether this is flagrant or not, but it is obvious that this is more that just a standard block.

[PS2Man]

Originally Posted by LDUB

The R player ran right between two K players, who were running down the field, to get to the kicker who was just standing there. If R was really trying to prevent K from getting to the ball carrier wouldn't it make more sense to block someone running towards the ball rather than someone just standing there?

I understand that people might disagree on whether this is flagrant or not, but it is obvious that this is more that just a standard block.

The play is only illegal because of where it took place. This is no different than a late hit or block that does not involve the play. Those are also not standard blocks but we do not eject players because of them.

[ajmc]

How is it so obvious?. Perhaps his assignment was to block the kicker, 5 yards or more in advance of the kick, and he just forgot the 5 yards part. Maybe two of his teammates were assigned to block the two players he ran past. Perhaps he got confused and didn't follow his assignment. Perhaps he's just an idiot and wasn't paying attention to, or just forgot or misunderstood, his instructions.

Then again maybe the kicker is dating his girlfriend and he's got a grudge to settle, or any one of a thousand other possibilities.

The bottom line is that YOU have to make a decision and there's nobody available to help you. Your decision, what ever it is will stand and it will likely displease someone regardless of what you decide.

I'm just suggesting you have to be SURE of what you decide, as you may well have to answer for your decision long after the fact, and if your decision is based on speculation about why whatever was done, was done you need to be really careful how you explain things.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I'm just suggesting you have to be SURE of what you decide, as you may well have to answer for your decision long after the fact, and if your decision is based on speculation about why whatever was done, was done you need to be really careful how you explain things.

And that, ladies and jellyspoons, is the bottom line on a great many of these "gray area" calls. Do the best you can, make your ruling, be prepared to take heat for it, but if, in your heart of hearts, you feel it's the right call, that's the best you can do. We can argue about it until the cows come home. But when it's you on that field, you have to make the decision and you have to back it up and justify it to the state (and hopefully not a court of law - though I believe courts have been pretty good about letting officials' judgment stand*).

*The preceding is not legal advice. Consult an attorney.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by LDUB

The R player ran right between two K players, who were running down the field, to get to the kicker who was just standing there. If R was really trying to prevent K from getting to the ball carrier wouldn't it make more sense to block someone running towards the ball rather than someone just standing there?

I understand that people might disagree on whether this is flagrant or not, but it is obvious that this is more that just a standard block.

That was exactly the argument I made almost 30 yrs. ago for calling UR on some plays like that even when there was no specific rule violation. It was in the Northern States Football League, which played their own rules, and only the NCAA had a roughing-the-kicker rule that applied to free kicks, and even that was very recent. The Chi. Lions were sending three R players running at the kicker on every kickoff, which obviously hurt their blocking on the runback. Once one of them tried to clothesline the kicker. I asked the officials afterward whether they could've called this UR on general principles because it was clearly done to injure or intimidate the kicker rather than to improve the runback. They said, barring a specific rule like NCAA's, no.

Sending someone running at the kicker like that was a common tactic at the time (since specialty kickers who weren't built like football players had become common), but sending 3 made it pretty obvious, yet officials are loathe to make that kind of judgement. So I'm not surprised that few would now want to bump up the PF to a disqualifying foul. It's like, well now that there's a specific rule against it, the prescribed penalty takes care of it.

Robert

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

How is it so obvious?. Perhaps his assignment was to block the kicker, 5 yards or more in advance of the kick, and he just forgot the 5 yards part. Maybe two of his teammates were assigned to block the two players he ran past. Perhaps he got confused and didn't follow his assignment. Perhaps he's just an idiot and wasn't paying attention to, or just forgot or misunderstood, his instructions.

Then again maybe the kicker is dating his girlfriend and he's got a grudge to settle, or any one of a thousand other possibilities.

The bottom line is that YOU have to make a decision and there's nobody available to help you. Your decision, what ever it is will stand and it will likely displease someone regardless of what you decide.

I'm just suggesting you have to be SURE of what you decide, as you may well have to answer for your decision long after the fact, and if your decision is based on speculation about why whatever was done, was done you need to be really careful how you explain things.

I agree.

Peace

[fljet]

I have not seen this yet, im glad i viewed your thread, in my associations 4 man mechanics the HL is on R's restraining line, LJ has the kicking team line, WH deep, and U is on the K line.

[chymechowder]

Originally Posted by PS2Man

The play is only illegal because of where it took place. This is no different than a late hit or block that does not involve the play. Those are also not standard blocks but we do not eject players because of them.

I'm in Massachusetts where we use NCAA rules for highschool so it might be different from Federation. but ncaa 9-1-2 lists 18 contact fouls, all of which are personal fouls, 15 yards, and carry the provision for ejection if flagrant.

In this play the "blocker" took a 14 yard running start before hitting the kicker illegally. But say it was a scrimmage play: QB, 7 yards behind LOS, throws a forward pass. Team B defender, 7 yard beyond LOS, makes the same 14 yard charge and puts the same hit on the QB.

Would you call this a "regular" roughing the passer call? Or would you eject the Team B player as well?

While something like this is not an automatic ejection in every case, it should have been in this one. Watch the play closely. See how many steps the kicker even took after he came back to the ground and regained a "normal" run after the kicking mechanics were completed. One, if even that. Matter of fact, this is the kind of thing that gets players suspended and fined in the NFL, and I wouldn't be surprised if some state HS associations might even suspend the player after the fact even without a penalty on the field.

Originally Posted by chymechowder

I'm in Massachusetts where we use NCAA rules for highschool so it might be different from Federation. but ncaa 9-1-2 lists 18 contact fouls, all of which are personal fouls, 15 yards, and carry the provision for ejection if flagrant.

In this play the "blocker" took a 14 yard running start before hitting the kicker illegally. But say it was a scrimmage play: QB, 7 yards behind LOS, throws a forward pass. Team B defender, 7 yard beyond LOS, makes the same 14 yard charge and puts the same hit on the QB.

Would you call this a "regular" roughing the passer call? Or would you eject the Team B player as well?

Scrimmage kicks are different than the scrimmage plays for this kind of thing. There are different rules in place for the protection of the kickers (and holders if present) than for someone in a scrimmage play. That's why the NCAA makes it clear what a scrimmage kick is by definition. But, there are rules protecting vulnerable receivers (see OU vs. Texas Tech this past Saturday) and roughing the passer (once the ball is gone, you can hit them but not tackle them). As for your play, you do have roughing the passer (provided the quarterback has released the ball), but you would not (as the R) would have known where that linebacker came from so nothing else except a heck of a Sportscenter highlight maybe.