Hit on Bengals punter

[APG]

Originally Posted by hbk314

You're calling a player defenseless when he isn't defenseless. How is that at all logical? I can't like or dislike what isn't there.

I'm calling him defenseless because I recognize that the term is a rule book term used to denote special protections afforded to a player due to actions he's performing...or due to his position and the effect on a team that would come if they were opened up to what in the NFL see as unnecessary roughness as a means to complete the given task by a blocker. The exact same protections are given to a QB on a change of possession!

If you can't see the NFL's logic/reasoning behind the rule (and I'm not even saying you have to agree with it...but it is there plain as day), then there's nothing anyone else can say that will shed anymore light.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by APG

I'm calling him defenseless because I recognize that the term is a rule book term used to denote special protections afforded to a player due to actions he's performing...or due to his position and the effect on a team that would come if they were opened up to what in the NFL see as unnecessary roughness as a means to complete the given task by a blocker. The exact same protections are given to a QB on a change of possession!

If you can't see the NFL's logic/reasoning behind the rule (and I'm not even saying you have to agree with it...but it is there plain as day), then there's nothing anyone else can say that will shed anymore light.

I understand what the NFL's reasoning is (I wouldn't call it logic), obviously I don't agree with it. If teams are so concerned about losing a punter or QB, they should coach them not to put themselves in a position to get laid out. Most players have the sense not to put themselves in that position to begin with. See Pat McAfee's comments.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by hbk314

You're calling a player defenseless when he isn't defenseless. How is that at all logical? I can't like or dislike what isn't there.

No he's not. You have invented your own definition of "defenseless" that doesn't match the NFL's. The punter and kicker are specifically defined as being defenseless throughout the down for the purposes of this rule.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

No he's not. You have invented your own definition of "defenseless" that doesn't match the NFL's. The punter and kicker are specifically defined as being defenseless throughout the down for the purposes of this rule.

I understand that they're defenseless by rule, but they're not defenseless in reality. They're free to pursue or not pursue the play just like anyone else on the field.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by hbk314

I understand that they're defenseless by rule, but they're not defenseless in reality. They're free to pursue or not pursue the play just like anyone else on the field.

And they're free to be blocked, just not above the shoulders or launched into.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by scrounge

And they're free to be blocked, just not above the shoulders or launched into.

Like I said, no logic to it.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Like I said, no logic to it.

So what do you want from us?

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Welpe

So what do you want from us?

I was just curious if there was a logical reason that I couldn't think of for the punter being "defenseless" for the duration of the play by rule. Seems there isn't one, or at least not one that's been stated so far.

There's a reason you don't generally see a lot of QBs throwing blocks or going all out for a tackle after an interception. It's not something that should be legislated.

[maven]

Originally Posted by hbk314

I was just curious if there was a logical reason that I couldn't think of for the punter being "defenseless" for the duration of the play by rule. Seems there isn't one, or at least not one that's been stated so far.

The rationale was stated in the very first reply to your question, in post #2.

Are you just quibbling about the word "defenseless?" Some players receive special protections due to the fact that there is no substitute for them. Would you prefer "protected player?" That's all that's at stake here.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by maven

The rationale was stated in the very first reply to your question, in post #2.

Are you just quibbling about the word "defenseless?" Some players receive special protections due to the fact that there is no substitute for them. Would you prefer "protected player?" That's all that's at stake here.

It would make slightly more sense, but it's still not a situation that calls for a special rule.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hbk314

It would make slightly more sense, but it's still not a situation that calls for a special rule.

Apparently, people with far higher pay grades than you or me disagree.

[HLin NC]

It would make slightly more sense, but it's still not a situation that calls for a special rule.

Do you realize that the NFL only dresses about 45 players for a game out of a 53 man roster and there's no back up punter or kicker?
There's your situation that calls for a special rule.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

Do you realize that the NFL only dresses about 45 players for a game out of a 53 man roster and there's no back up punter or kicker?
There's your situation that calls for a special rule.

The solution is to coach your punter not to put himself in the "war zone" or to stay out of the play altogether. Not to legislate things to protect people from their own stupidity.

[APG]

Originally Posted by hbk314

The solution is to coach your punter not to put himself in the "war zone" or to stay out of the play altogether. Not to legislate things to protect people from their own stupidity.

Okay...and then each punt/kick off return...or anytime there's a change of possession with the QB, it would be 10 v. 11.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by APG

Okay...and then each punt/kick off return...or anytime there's a change of possession with the QB, it would be 10 v. 11.

That's the risk you take.