Crap Tactic: What Would You Do?

[bossman72]

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.

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

[BktBallRef]

If you watch the play from the AOL Fanhouse site, you can pause the play just as the ball is kicked. The defender is clearly a yard into the neutral zone when the ball is kicked. Looks like the crew just wasn't prepared for it.

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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