Hit on Bengals punter

[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.

[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.