Hit on Bengals punter

[hbk314]

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by APG

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.

The other protections that the NFL has come up with is due to the relative nature of the actual position and the relative scarcity and specialization of the position and the advantage that would be bestowed to the opponent if they were given necessary 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.

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by APG

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

[scrounge]

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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.

Indianapolis Colts punter Pat McAfee -- Defenseless label a setback - ESPN

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.

[Welpe]

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"

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by APG

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...go ahead and blow him up...just don't hit him illegally.

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.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Because there is no logic.

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.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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.

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

[APG]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Not according the Blandino's statement.

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.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by APG

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.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by APG

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

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.