Hit on Bengals punter

[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.

[Robert Goodman]

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?

I'm sure there is one in the depth chart or at least in a coach's head, it's just that there'll be a big drop-off in performance from that of the starter -- probably not huge in the case of the punter, but huge in the case of the place kicker.

What I find funny is that the NFL doesn't outlaw deliberate hits above the shoulders or with the helmet generally. It may be that they do, but are just looking for the foul more in the case of those players who tend to wear the bull's eye.