Hit on Bengals punter

[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.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by 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.

That makes more sense. I can only think ofa couple examples from the NFL level off the top of my head.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hbk314

That makes more sense. I can only think ofa couple examples from the NFL level off the top of my head.

Probably because of the rule, to be honest. Without it....

[bisonlj]

I think the biggest issue here is the use of the word defenseless. People try to apply the dictionary definition rather than the rule book definition (similar to uncatchable). Maybe "protected" would be a better word.

Someone who truly knows and understands the rules realizes very quickly how important the definitions are. This is a great example. There is another rule that refers to what is illegal against "defenseless" players. That means defenseless has to be defined and referenced in other places. Rather than saying what can't be done to a passer or kicker, they identified them as defenseless and applied the protections defined elsewhere in the book.

I've heard so many people getting hung up on the word "defenseless" because he's obviously not defenseless in this situation (unless you want to consider this a blindside hit). It's a defined player designation which brings certain certain rules into play.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by hbk314

That makes more sense. I can only think of a couple examples from the NFL level off the top of my head.

If you're not at the games, it can be hard to see, because the camera's usually looking elsewhere. I used to see in various adult games (amateur or pro) sometimes 3 opponents go straight for the kicker at the kickoff. Obviously it would be to the team's detriment tactically to do that, because it's not as if the kicker was such a great cover player that you need to knock him off with 3 blockers, but they expected to benefit strategically by knocking him out of the game, especially if they were scheduled to play more games with the same opposing team.

[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.