Hit on Bengals punter

[APG]

Originally Posted by hbk314

It still has merit. There's no logical reason to legislate an advantage for one player on the field when in reality he's not any more "defenseless" than any other play. If he doesn't want to get hit like any other player, he should stay away from the play.

Even the Colts' punter more or less agrees with me.

Indianapolis Colts punter Pat McAfee -- Defenseless label a setback - ESPN

Good for him. The NFL doesn't care. The NFL won't change the rule any time soon just like they won't change the rule with quarterbacks being considered defenseless during a change of possession (which means they're getting all the same protections as a kicker/punter).

I already gave you the logic behind the rule. You just don't like and/or agree with the reasoning. It's not a matter of the punter/kicker not wanting to get hit...the NFL doesn't want kickers/punters exposed to what is in their eyes is unnecessary (especially when what would happen if a team were to lose a kicker/punter during a game)...go ahead and blow him up...just don't hit him illegally.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by APG

Good for him. The NFL doesn't care. The NFL won't change the rule any time soon just like they won't change the rule with quarterbacks being considered defenseless during a change of possession (which means they're getting all the same protections as a kicker/punter).

I already gave you the logic behind the rule. You just don't like and/or agree with the reasoning. It's not a matter of the punter/kicker not wanting to get hit...the NFL doesn't want kickers/punters exposed to what is in their eyes is unnecessary...go ahead and blow him up...just don't hit him illegally.

Because there is no logic. If you don't want to get hit, stay away from the play. If you get hit and injured and you're the only punter on the roster, that's your fault. There's no reason that the NFL should be legislating extra protection for a player who isn't defenseless by any stretch of the imagination.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Because there is no logic.

There is, you just don't like it.

I'm sorry we are unable to provide you with an answer that is satisfactory.

If it makes you feel any better, this is a foul even if the player hit wasn't defenseless.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Welpe

There is, you just don't like it.

I'm sorry we are unable to provide you with an answer that is satisfactory.

If it makes you feel any better, this is a foul even if the player hit wasn't defenseless.

Not according the Blandino's statement.

[APG]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Not according the Blandino's statement.

If the block is considered a blindside block (offensive blocker is moving toward or parallel to his own end line and approaches the opponent from behind or from the side), then the blocked player would receive defenseless player protections.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by APG

If the block is considered a blindside block (offensive blocker is moving toward or parallel to his own end line and approaches the opponent from behind or from the side), then the blocked player would receive defenseless player protections.

Then he would have said that.

[Raymond]

Too bad Blandino doesn't have a forum.

Is this one of those situations where a certain non-football official is trying to learn something about football officiating or just here to complain?

[APG]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Because there is no logic. If you don't want to get hit, stay away from the play. If you get hit and injured and you're the only punter on the roster, that's your fault. There's no reason that the NFL should be legislating extra protection for a player who isn't defenseless by any stretch of the imagination.

Like I said...you just don't like the logic.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by APG

Like I said...you just don't like the logic.

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.

[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.

[Raymond]

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? What were you hoping to learn by complaining about the rule here?