Hit on Bengals punter

[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.

[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?

[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?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Had it not been the punter who was blocked, was this otherwise a legal block? Or was our non-punter A1 otherwise defenseless?

Not in my opinion, no. In addition to the punter being defenseless, in my judgment the blocker made contact with the crown of his helmet to the neck/chin area of the punter.

I'm looking at this through the lens of NCAA but I believe the NFL is the same in regard to hitting with the crown and Blandino does seem to allude to that by mentioning the crown.

And let's keep this discussion on the play please, not the individual personalities involved in the discussion.

[Raymond]

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.

He is defenseless by "rule", not by the Webster Dictionary.