Hit on Bengals punter

[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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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.

Okay...and then each punt/kick off return...or anytime there's a change of possession with the QB, it would be 10 v. 11.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by APG

Okay...and then each punt/kick off return...or anytime there's a change of possession with the QB, it would be 10 v. 11.

That's the risk you take.

[Rich]

You know, none of these rules would even exist if there wasn't a history of teams targetinging punters, kickers, and QBs for the sole intent of blowing them up.

There's no reason I should have to follow a punter or a QB around the field after their role as QB or punter is over. But I have to because of this nonsense. And I'll flag anything excessive (and I have) in a heartbeat.

[HLin NC]

The solution is to coach your punter not to put himself in the "war zone" or to stay out of the play altogether.

But the NFL owners, who are really the only people whose opinion matters, opted not to choose that solution. Thus it is what it is, a situation you find foolish, yet out of your control.

[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.