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.

[Ref inSoCA]

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Ref inSoCA

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?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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

But not their bosses.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Ref inSoCA

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.

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.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by APG

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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Adam

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

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