Hit on Bengals punter

[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.