Hit on Bengals punter
 

Dean Blandino, head of NFL officials, says hit on Kevin Huber was illegal - ESPN

What's the logic behind that rule?

Logically to me, the punter would be just like any other player on the field once the ball's away. If not, he should be required to leave the field immediately after kicking it away.

The NFL has two rationales for many of their unnecessary roughness rules. One involves players not being able to protect themselves due to performing actions commonly performed by the player. This would be be a receiver in the act of catching the ball up to the point of becoming a runner, a passer, or a kicker/punter who has kicked the ball, the snapper on a field goal/extra point, a person in the act of catching a punt/kickoff, etc.

The other protections that the NFL has come up with is due to the relative nature of the actual position, the relative scarcity and specialization of the position, and the advantage that would be bestowed to the opponent if they were given free leeway with unnecessary shots on that player. This is going to be your QB throughout a down and a kicker/punter throughout the kick and return. You lose a kicker or a punter, you've seriously hampered a team's special teams ability...especially since only 1 K and 1 P is carried on game day.

Your last statement is silly. If a player is defenseless by the rule, it doesn't mean you can't contact him. It means he can't be hit above the shoulders with a helmet, forearm, or shoulder. They also can't be contacted in the body with any part of the crown of the helmet. They also can't be illegally launched into. I mean seriously...we've seen P/K light up all the team...and not in the head...that's still legal.

Then punters should stay out of the play and not put themselves in position to get hit, especially when it would have been a legal hit on any of his 10 teammates on the field. If he's "defenseless" he should be headed off the field.

I completely understand the vulnerability of certain players in certain situations (defenseless receivers, punters/QBs in the kicking/throwing motion), but it seems like if they're going to be allowed the same level of participation in the play as everyone else, they should be subject to the same rules as everyone else, since at that point, they're not any more defenseless than any other player.

It just seems like they're legislating something that the players/teams involved should be smart enough to avoid.

Why should they get off the field? You act as if a punter/kicker can not be contacted throughout the down. The only thing you can't do is hit the punter up high or use the top or crown of your helmet to him anywhere or illegally launch into him. If the punter/kicker was not allowed to be contacted at all, and was free to participate in the play, then your point would have merit.

It still has merit. There's no logical reason to legislate an advantage for one player on the field when in reality he's not any more "defenseless" than any other play. If he doesn't want to get hit like any other player, he should stay away from the play.

Even the Colts' punter more or less agrees with me.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10...-label-setback

Well....if the Colts' punter has spoken, I guess the debate is over!

Just block them without hitting above the shoulders or launching and it's a non-issue.

Good for him. The NFL doesn't care. The NFL won't change the rule any time soon just like they won't change the rule with quarterbacks being considered defenseless during a change of possession (which means they're getting all the same protections as a kicker/punter).

I already gave you the logic behind the rule. You just don't like and/or agree with the reasoning. It's not a matter of the punter/kicker not wanting to get hit...the NFL doesn't want kickers/punters exposed to what is in their eyes is unnecessary (especially when what would happen if a team were to lose a kicker/punter during a game)...go ahead and blow him up...just don't hit him illegally.

QBs and kickers/punters are in limited supply as fairly specialized role players.

Because these players are in more specialized roles, the other team tends to headhunt them more, intentionally seeking them out during plays like kick returns and interceptions to blow them up.

The NFL is in the entertainment business. They've determined that this type of headhunting is detrimental to the product they put on the field.

Ergo, they have chosen this method of extending further protection to these players so that their desired product is put on the field.

If you'd like to suggest a rule change to the NFL as a concerned fan of the game, I'm sure there's a way to do that.

As to officials, "Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die"

Because there is no logic. If you don't want to get hit, stay away from the play. If you get hit and injured and you're the only punter on the roster, that's your fault. There's no reason that the NFL should be legislating extra protection for a player who isn't defenseless by any stretch of the imagination.

There is, you just don't like it.

I'm sorry we are unable to provide you with an answer that is satisfactory.

If it makes you feel any better, this is a foul even if the player hit wasn't defenseless.

Not according the Blandino's statement.

Like I said...you just don't like the logic.

If the block is considered a blindside block (offensive blocker is moving toward or parallel to his own end line and approaches the opponent from behind or from the side), then the blocked player would receive defenseless player protections.

Then he would have said that.

You're calling a player defenseless when he isn't defenseless. How is that at all logical? I can't like or dislike what isn't there.

I'm calling him defenseless because I recognize that the term is a rule book term used to denote special protections afforded to a player due to actions he's performing...or due to his position and the effect on a team that would come if they were opened up to what in the NFL see as unnecessary roughness as a means to complete the given task by a blocker. The exact same protections are given to a QB on a change of possession!

If you can't see the NFL's logic/reasoning behind the rule (and I'm not even saying you have to agree with it...but it is there plain as day), then there's nothing anyone else can say that will shed anymore light.

I understand what the NFL's reasoning is (I wouldn't call it logic), obviously I don't agree with it. If teams are so concerned about losing a punter or QB, they should coach them not to put themselves in a position to get laid out. Most players have the sense not to put themselves in that position to begin with. See Pat McAfee's comments.

No he's not. You have invented your own definition of "defenseless" that doesn't match the NFL's. The punter and kicker are specifically defined as being defenseless throughout the down for the purposes of this rule.

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.

Like I said, no logic to it.

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.

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.

Apparently, people with far higher pay grades than you or me disagree.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Especially since outside of the NFL, the term is commonly applied in football in its ordinary meaning.

But say...has anyone here actually verified that this is a technical term now in NFL? Or are we just assuming it?

One potential issue is that you have the punter ona return potentially in with all of his teammates. It shouldn't be the responsibility of a return team member to have to identify the one guy out of the 11 he can't block a certain way.

The NFL defined has defined who is considered in a defenseless posture:

Article 7: Players in a Defenseless Posture.
It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture.

(a) Players in a defenseless posture are:

(1) A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass;
(2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;
(3) A runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped;
(4) A kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air;
(5) A player on the ground;
(6) A kicker/punter during the kick or during the return (Also see Article 6(g) for additional restrictions against a kicker/punter);
(7) A quarterback at any time after a change of possession (Also see Article 8(f) for additional restrictions against a quarterback after a change of possession);
(8) A player who receives a ―blindside block when the offensive blocker is moving toward or parallel to his own end line and approaches the opponent from behind or from the side, and
(9) A player who is protected from an illegal crackback block (see Article 2);
(10) The offensive player who attempts a snap during a Field Goal attempt or a Try Kick.

****

Part 10 is a new rule for this year.

It's not hard to figure out who the punter or the kicker is is...he's the guy who..kicked the ball and who you've probably seen on film countless times during the week before. The onus is on the player to know who he's blocking. If in doubt, don't blow him up in the head or use the crown against his body...or illegally launch into him.

Out of morbid curiosity, I want to see a thread between HBK and Rut. The amount of bloviating and paths beaten around the mulberry bush would make a used-car salesman feel like a mute preacher.

There's a couple. WISCONSIN - ASU and the Gronkowski play come to mind.

Lord, no. Let them remain dead.:rolleyes:

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

Too bad Blandino doesn't have a forum.

Is this one of those situations where a certain non-football official is trying to learn something about football officiating or just here to complain? :rolleyes:

He is defenseless by "rule", not by the Webster Dictionary.

And? What were you hoping to learn by complaining about the rule here?

Not in my opinion, no. In addition to the punter being defenseless, in my judgment the blocker made contact with the crown of his helmet to the neck/chin area of the punter.

I'm looking at this through the lens of NCAA but I believe the NFL is the same in regard to hitting with the crown and Blandino does seem to allude to that by mentioning the crown.

And let's keep this discussion on the play please, not the individual personalities involved in the discussion.

Again ... people much closer to the actual situation, who have vested monetary interest in both the success of the game and the safety of players, disagree with what SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be. If you disagree so drastically about what should be in this sport ... stop watching.

Seems to me you need to seriously decide whether you're here to learn or here to complain. You started this thread with the pretense of learning, but you certainly aren't there anymore.

At anything below the NFL level, I'm flagging this as UNR without a second thought regardless of the location of the crown of the helmet.

How does the block need to be made to not be UNR for you? I assume it's not that he was blocked in the first place, because the punter was, imo, in position to make a play had he not been blocked.

I think in NCAA this hit meets both types of targeting so I agree.

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.

What are the criteria for those?

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.

Two types of targeting in NCAA:
1) Initiating contact with the crown of the helmet. (9-1-3). NOTE: this does NOT require that the targeted player be defenseless.

2) Initiating contact to the head and neck area of a defenseless player by using the helmet, hand, fist, forearm, elbow, or shoulder (9-1-4).

NCAA Defines defenseless players in rule 2-27-14:
Defenseless Player

ARTICLE 14. A defenseless player is one who because his physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. Examples of defenseless players are:

a. A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass

b. A receiver attempting to catch a pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.

c. A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.

d. A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick.

e. A player on the ground.

f. A player obviously out of the play.

g. A player who receives a blind-side block.

h. A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.

i. A quarterback any time after a change of possession.

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.

There is no logic. Blandino is not an official and, apparently, knows nothing about officiating. The worst Commissioner is all of sports has made the NFL a joke.

That was a geat block that cleared a hole for the runner. If the punter is such a pussy, he shouldn't be out there.

Is this a rules based in interpretation or your own personal thoughts?

There is a clear logic behind the rule...of which everyone else seems to be able to understand except for you and hbk213.

So I assume that you think the NCAA is a joke as well? Because the punter would be afforded the exact same protections on this play as the NFL.

I understand it. What would you think of making the punters or any other player afforded defenseless player protection for the duration of plays wear some kind of identifier, whether a different jersey color or something else?

A unique number seems to be sufficient for the vast majority of plays.

Receivers and punters/kickers/quarterbacks do have some overlap in numbering.

Don't really think it's needed...it's pretty evident to everyone on the field who the kicker/punter or QB is on a play.

Apparently that was an interpretation shared by the field officials on the game.

But not their bosses.

Yes and no. At that level, everyone knows who the punter is, and what his number is. They spent hours watching film all week. There are no secrets.

I think he's just saying if protecting the punter is so important why not make it really clear who he is. I can imagine that a player might block a punter or kicker without happening to glance at his number. If protecting those guys is so important it makes sense to give them a special jersey color.

Maybe. I see your point, but how many other times has this happened? I can't recall any. The rule seems to be working as it is.

I think we got that. In return, it really isn't that hard to figure out who the punter/kicker/QB is/was- low #, smallish looking dude all the way in the backfield.

This isn't soccer.

I could maybe see this point...if there was a rash of these type of plays. Players know who the QB/kicker is. Just watch any type of change of possession during a scrimmage down. You'll see players avoid contacting the QB unless he's trying to make a play.