Crap Tactic: What Would You Do?

[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.

[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.

[chymechowder]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

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.

Sure, there's a chance you wouldn't have known where the LB came from. But there's a good chance you or the umpire would see where he came from. (Say the QB rolls right, to the ref's side, and the linebacker, QB, and ref are just about aligned.)

At any rate it's a hypothetical--assume you saw the linebacker start his 14 yard charge after the ball was thrown.

Do you still have "nothing else" other than a 15 yard roughing penalty?

Originally Posted by chymechowder

At any rate it's a hypothetical--assume you saw the linebacker start his 14 yard charge after the ball was thrown.

If that was the case, not only would I have the roughing the passer penalty, but an ejection. However, he'd have to be a pretty damn fast linebacker to cover 14 yards and get a roughing penalty because by then the ball would have been long gone and you would be looking at a personal foul unnecessary roughness penalty.

[chymechowder]

right...okay, call it unnecessary roughness. but the reason you'd have 15 + the ejection is because of the 14 yard charge right? it's the long run that makes it flagrant?

so why wouldn't it be flagrant on the kicker in the youtube clip?

I guess I'm just a little surprised that some people's reactions were along the lines of: Hey, I'm not gonna call that flagrant because I can't divine the intent of the fouler.

I appreciate that divining intent can be tricky. But that's part of the job!
And of course we dont want to throw around 15 yard penalties or ejections liberally. But if that youtube clip isn't flagrant, then honestly, what is? Does the player need to have a weapon before it's flagrant?

Also, it's misleading to compare the video hit to other legal hits that may be just as vicious...OF COURSE there are brutal legal hits. it's a violent game...but that's irrelevant. we're talking about personal fouls.

[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.

[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

[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