Hit on Bengals punter

[Eastshire]

Had it not been the punter who was blocked, was this otherwise a legal block? Or was our non-punter A1 otherwise defenseless?

[hbk314]

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?

The way I would interpret Blandino's statement is that this was only an illegal block on the punter. Why else would he cite that "the key" is that punters are considered defenseless players by rule when talking about the hit? I'd think that if it were a block that he viewed to be illegal no matter who was being blocked, he would have said that.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by hbk314

The way I would interpret Blandino's statement is that this was only an illegal block on the punter. Why else would he cite that "the key" is that punters are considered defenseless players by rule when talking about the hit? I'd think that if it were a block that he viewed to be illegal no matter who was being blocked, he would have said that.

It's also possible because that one is black and white. He's a punter so you can't hit him high. The blindside hit is much more subjective but would also qualify as defenseless (aka protected).

Every other "crown of the helmet" example I've seen has involved the player lowering their helmet and leading with it. Here is I see him leading with the face of his helmet into the upper chest (generally OK) which resulted in the top of his helmet hitting the facemask and chin. I'm OK if the powers that be want to consider that hitting with the crown of the helmet because it will help reduce these unnecessary high hits.

[APG]

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?

I think the only other case to be made would be to whether this was a blindside block...if it is, the blocked player would receive all the same protections of a defenseless player.