Punt question

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

ajmc,

Do whatever your local association, crew or area allows.

If you are looking for answers, you have been given them by many here. If you do not want to accept them and think there is something more, then use that logic that works for you. No one here is really likely to work with you or have much to say over what games you get or do not get. Same applies to me if I have an interpretation or philosophy.

Do what you see fit. Not much reason to keep debating what is clearly there in my mind. If it is not in your mind, then do what you need to do. I just think that is not the intent of the rule and will not rule accordingly.

Peace

Keep in mind you are debating with a clock operator. He doesn't have to make this call on the field.

I don't believe there is any rule support to say touching by an R player is ignored because another R player was blocked into the ball by an opponent. The exception only applies to the guy blocked into the ball. That seems pretty clear to me. Plus the sound philosophy I've heard is the block of the R player into the ball had better be a signficant block where he completely loses control of his body. That makes even that call a very unlikely one.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Keep in mind you are debating with a clock operator. He doesn't have to make this call on the field.

Well if that is the case, it shows how little I pay attention on this site. I was under the impression he was an official. Sounds like another guy trying to debate a rule they are not experienced in actually ajudicating on a regular basis. This statement is duly noted.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I don't believe there is any rule support to say touching by an R player is ignored because another R player was blocked into the ball by an opponent. The exception only applies to the guy blocked into the ball. That seems pretty clear to me.

I agree with you on that one. The side the other guy is taken that this is an "uncovered" area of the rules could be argued about any specific play situation. Like, the rules don't say anything about someone's faking a pass, resulting in an opponent's making illegal use of hands, so the silence about such a case is an excuse to rule it as...?

Plus the sound philosophy I've heard is the block of the R player into the ball had better be a signficant block where he completely loses control of his body. That makes even that call a very unlikely one.

That far I wouldn't take it. I'd go for any situation in which contact with the opponent causes the player of R to move (not to fail to move) in a way that leads to contact occurring between him and the ball that wouldn't've occurred at all otherwise. So if R1 is blocking K1 and the ball bounces backwards and hits R1 in the back, don't ignore the touching unless K1 caused R1 to move into the ball's path rather than just keeping him from moving out of its path. Otherwise players of R could block players of K near the ball with complete impunity while trying to keep them from downing the ball.

[ajmc]

[QUOTE=bisonlj;900292]Keep in mind you are debating with a clock operator. He doesn't have to make this call on the field.

One of the dangers of writing, or speaking, words without filtering them through a rational thought process is that you make yourself sound like a petty fool, pathetically deparate to make yourself sound important.

I have no way of knowing how games at different levels are serviced where you work Mr. bisonlj, nor am I all that interested, but I was, thankfully taught to know better than mouth off about something I know nothing about. The 40+ years I've had the pleasure of spending on football fields, at multiple levels, before moving to the press box, has given me some insight, a lot of continuing interest and the knowledge that, as much as I may have thought I learned, it's likely a lot less than I can yet understand.

Being resigned to enjoy the back side of the mountain, I can tell you that accepting the status of "has been", despite all it's limitations, is far more enjoyable than being a "never was", which is where a lot of people who find it necessary to try and blow smoke up their pants, trying to sound important by denegrating others, more often than not, usually wind up.

[bisonlj]

[QUOTE=ajmc;900448]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Keep in mind you are debating with a clock operator. He doesn't have to make this call on the field.

One of the dangers of writing, or speaking, words without filtering them through a rational thought process is that you make yourself sound like a petty fool, pathetically deparate to make yourself sound important.

I have no way of knowing how games at different levels are serviced where you work Mr. bisonlj, nor am I all that interested, but I was, thankfully taught to know better than mouth off about something I know nothing about. The 40+ years I've had the pleasure of spending on football fields, at multiple levels, before moving to the press box, has given me some insight, a lot of continuing interest and the knowledge that, as much as I may have thought I learned, it's likely a lot less than I can yet understand.

Being resigned to enjoy the back side of the mountain, I can tell you that accepting the status of "has been", despite all it's limitations, is far more enjoyable than being a "never was", which is where a lot of people who find it necessary to try and blow smoke up their pants, trying to sound important by denegrating others, more often than not, usually wind up.

Point taken. I succumbed to the idiocy that is the anonymous world of the internet. I am sorry. But will you please do me one favor? Will you please learn how to properly use a comma? I know we don't always have perfect grammar, spelling or punctuation but I have a hard time taking you seriously when all I can see is commas.

[ajmc]

We should be able to learn from anyone, if we can first accept disagreeing without being disagreeable.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by ajmc

We should be able to learn from anyone if we can first accept disagreeing without being disagreeable.

Agreed. Fixed it for ya.