Ignoring the POURING match for a moment, it seems to me that this could reasonably be covered by 9-9-1: "A player or nonplayer or person(s) not subject to the rules shall not hinder play by an unfair act which has no specific rule coverage."
In my opinion, R hindered play by an unfair act when he blocked a K player who was clearly out of bounds as a result of the first block. If the second block ISN'T an unfair act, then at what point does it become unfair? When the block takes place 10 yards off the field? When the blocker drives his opponent into the stands like this is the movie "Blindside"? This is about limits and interpretation. Determining if K was attempting to get back in bounds is inconsequential to the block by R. And since this situation has no specific rule coverage, as mentioned numerous times, then those who wish to use 9-9-1 as a means of protecting players can do so. Others who don't feel it falls into that category can rule as they wish.