Roughing the Kicker???

[Illini_Ref]

Assume NF rules here.

Does the offense have to be in a scrimmage kick formation in order for a roughing the kicker penalty to be called? I'm picturing a 3rd down quick kick. Say the QB is 6 yards behind the line(non scrimmage kick formation), and tries to kick, and is hit just after the kick. Let's say that you would throw a flag on this if it was a traditional punt (scrimmage kick formation). Is it roughing by rule and definition. I notice all the cases in the case book talk about being in a scrimmage kick formation. Didn't know if that was a prerequisite. I know you couldn't have roughing the snapper without the SCF but I don't know about the kicker.

[BktBallRef]

There's no such requirement. At the same time, the defense should be given the benefit of the doubt if it's unclear whether a kick will occur or not.

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

There's no such requirement. At the same time, the defense should be given the benefit of the doubt if it's unclear whether a kick will occur or not.

Very good point.

Whenever a coach tells me that they run the rugby punt I tell them that I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to the defense if the Punter/Runner gets hit.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

Very good point.

Whenever a coach tells me that they run the rugby punt I tell them that I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to the defense if the Punter/Runner gets hit.

That's an outstanding procedure. Make sure he hears that before R holds that flag.

[ppaltice]

When the kick is not obvious, I give the benefit of doubt to the defense. What I determine is if the defender is trying to tackle the runner or block a kick. If the defender jumps in front of the kicker as to obstruct the kick or lowers his head as the kicker is kicking the ball, he knew the kick was coming and as such needs to avoid the kicker.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by mbyron

That's an outstanding procedure. Make sure he hears that before R holds that flag.

It's self-preservation. GWR is the R on his crew.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

Very good point.

Whenever a coach tells me that they run the rugby punt I tell them that I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to the defense if the Punter/Runner gets hit.

Given the propensity of coaches to hear what they want to hear, rather than what you might actually say, or mean, that sounds like an unnecessary comment that could really backfire. Unnecessary because the rule (NF: 9-4-5-a) spells exactly that out. The key word in this rule is unavoidable, which , unless you want to flirt with a can of worms. shouldn't need additional explanation, opinion or discussion.

The primary intent of this rule places total responsibility on the defense to AVOID contact with a kicker (or holder). 9-4-5-a is a purely judgment call and it's YOUR judgment alone that matters.

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Given the propensity of coaches to hear what they want to hear, rather than what you might actually say, or mean, that sounds like an unnecessary comment that could really backfire. Unnecessary because the rule (NF: 9-4-5-a) spells exactly that out. The key word in this rule is unavoidable, which , unless you want to flirt with a can of worms. shouldn't need additional explanation, opinion or discussion.

The primary intent of this rule places total responsibility on the defense to AVOID contact with a kicker (or holder). 9-4-5-a is a purely judgment call and it's YOUR judgment alone that matters.

Understandable, but this rule was put in before the Rugby Punt was in vogue...not so much anymore in our parts. Every punt, kick, and pass white hats have to rule on what avoidable and unavoidable contact on punters, kickers, holders, and passers. We all have a slightly different opinion about how much contact and steps we are going to allow...and if it is roughing, running into, or nothing. I am not worried about the can of worms you speak of.