High school ruling

[cb33]

Offensive team attempting PAT after score. Defensive team blocks PAT but referee flags defense for roughing the kicker.

I am not a football official but was unaware that a roughing the kicker penalty could be called on a blocked PAT or FG. Could someone explain? Thanks

[BktBallRef]

A kicker can be roughed on a PAT or a FGA whether it's blocked or not.

If the contact is avoidable, it's a penalty.

[Reffing Rev.]

Just because the kick is blocked does not make it open season on the kicker or holder. If there was still avoidable contact it could still be roughing.

[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.

[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...”

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by cb33

Offensive team attempting PAT after score. Defensive team blocks PAT but referee flags defense for roughing the kicker.

I am not a football official but was unaware that a roughing the kicker penalty could be called on a blocked PAT or FG. Could someone explain? Thanks

CANADIAN RULING:

(a) repeat the convert from the previous spot and move up 15 on the KO in the same quarter, or if at end of quarter, up 15 in the next quarter or overtime, or (b) repeat the convert up 15 yards from the previous spot, unrestricted.

Once the ball is kicked, the kicker is protected from contact unless by a player that touches the ball. So if B4 blocks the PAT and B9 roughs the kicker, it's a foul.

[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!

[MD Longhorn]

What's interesting to me is that if you actually look at the information available (and I have), the idea of home cooking is a fallacy. I saw numbers from all reported games in one very large association for football for a 2 year period. Over 10000 penalties called in total - home team had less than a tenth of a percent less penalties called on them ... and had just over a tenth of a percent MORE yardage called on them.

What most people who cry "home cooking" don't realize is that the officials (regardless of sport) are for the most part calling games for FAR more than just the particular home team of that game - and with the majority of games being District games ... most of these officials end up calling home games for BOTH teams in a particular contest. The idea that there's bias at this level is ludicrous. Take the same thing to NCAA and it's the same - officials work for the CONFERENCE, not the home teams. Ditto MLB/NFL/NBA.