High school ruling

[parepat]

I would not want to be a kicker if I couldn't be roughed on a try!

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by parepat

I would not want to be a kicker if I couldn't be roughed on a try!

The issue is not that this is a PAT instead of a FG attempt. The issue is that the kick was blocked. I admit ... contrarily to the other posts, I'm having trouble envisioning how we have roughing the kicker on a blocked kick. I can see USC if there was a large separation between the time the ball was blocked and the timing of the hit on the kicker...

But it seems to me that generally if you block the kick and then contact the kicker after the block, it's not roughing. Perhaps someone can clarify with an example - I'm having trouble with this one.

[cb33]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

The issue is not that this is a PAT instead of a FG attempt. The issue is that the kick was blocked. I admit ... contrarily to the other posts, I'm having trouble envisioning how we have roughing the kicker on a blocked kick. I can see USC if there was a large separation between the time the ball was blocked and the timing of the hit on the kicker...

But it seems to me that generally if you block the kick and then contact the kicker after the block, it's not roughing. Perhaps someone can clarify with an example - I'm having trouble with this one.

That was my thought process when I first posted the question. Kick was blocked out in front (taken off the kicker's toe, just like you're coached) The only contact was on the kicker's follow through. That was only one of several questionable calls to go against visiting team that night. Hate to use the word "home cooking" but it sure seemed that way.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by cb33

Hate to use the word "home cooking" but it sure seemed that way.

Then why use it?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Then why use it?

Because that what he thinks.

[cb33]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Then why use it?

Being an official in other sports other than football, it's very obvious to most people in attendance at a sporting event when calls go against the visiting team, thus the phrase "home cooking."

Not only does it make the entire crew look bad, but if officials ARE doing it intentionally then they need to be at home on Friday nights eating their wife's "home cooking." Time to walk away from the game!

[APG]

Do you have any evidence that the officials were "favoring" the home team on purpose?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by cb33

Being an official in other sports other than football, it's very obvious to most people in attendance at a sporting event when calls go against the visiting team, thus the phrase "home cooking."

Not only does it make the entire crew look bad, but if officials ARE doing it intentionally then they need to be at home on Friday nights eating their wife's "home cooking." Time to walk away from the game!

Right, because we all know that the visiting team always fouls less than the home team.

[CT1]

What's interesting to me is when an association gets accused of "home cooking" even though they have the contract for both schools involved!

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by cb33

Being an official in other sports other than football,

Seeing that and "home cooking" in the same posts just makes me shake my head. We have enough issues with coaches and fans, we don't need to hang our own with circumstantial at best evidence.

[InsideTheStripe]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

But it seems to me that generally if you block the kick and then contact the kicker after the block, it's not roughing. Perhaps someone can clarify with an example - I'm having trouble with this one.

In order there to be RTK after a scrimmage kick is blocked/touched near the point of the kick, the defender(s) would pretty much have to renew their direct charge or change direction to initiate contact.


The note from 9.4.5 SIT A covers it pretty well:

The defense is responsible to avoid the kicker holder whenever possible. In any situation, if the defense is to be excused for contacting the kicker/ holder as a result of touching the kick, the ball must be touched near the spot of the kick. A defensive player may not, even after the kick has been touched, stop and then renew his charge into the kicker/holder, nor may he change his direction and charge into the kicker/holder after the ball is touched. Touching the kicked ball is, in itself, not license to charge the kicker/holder. The defensive player will not be penalized if he has made an honest endeavor to block the kick and has either succeeded, or so nearly succeeded that he touched the ball and in so doing finds himself in a position where he cannot avoid contacting the kicker/holder as a result of his effort. The rule does not specify that only the player who touches the kick is excused from contacting the kicker/holder, rather it states, “when the defense touches...”

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe

In order there to be RTK after a scrimmage kick is blocked/touched near the point of the kick, the defender(s) would pretty much have to renew their direct charge or change direction to initiate contact.

The note from 9.4.5 SIT A covers it pretty well:

There is one other case that I've seen. When there are 2 rushers, and one of them is way off track, we've flagged them for RTK. For example, B51 makes a great dive and blocks the kick immediately off the foot. B52 makes a beeline for the kicker, hitting him immediately after the kick. We'd flag B52 for RTK everytime.

Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe

The rule does not specify that only the player who touches the kick is excused from contacting the kicker/holder, rather it states, “when the defense touches...”

Well, in some cases, it is hard (impossible?) to excuse any contact on the kicker that isn't in the vicinity of the ball.