Roughing the kicker

[medi-ogre]

Punt formation.  K1 muffs the long snap.  He regains possession and starts to run to his right.  Takes a few running steps and then makes what is now referred to as a rugby style kick.  R1 coming from the left makes an attempt to block the kick, does not touch the ball and knocks K1 down.  Is this roughing?

9-4-5b's exception to roughing the kicker is in effect if it is determined the contact could not be avoided because of the uncertainty that K will actually kick the ball. 

Does not the fact that R1 made an attempt to block the kick mean he was certain a kick was going to be made thus roughing? 

[HLinNC]

Case play 9.4.5 b would tell us it is not.

[ECILLJ]

R1 coming from the left makes an attempt to block the kick

IMHO, you correctly answered your question. 

[Ralph Damren]

Agreed, IMHO, if the kicker /runner is in the process of being tackled, he is thought to be a runner; abide, no foul. If the B ???R is in the process of trying to block the kick, that would indicate that a kick is possible.

[AlUpstateNY]

The first sentence of the Casebook "Comment" in 9.4.5 Situation A sets the tone for enforcing Roughing the Kicker violations, "The defense is responsible to avoid the kicker/holder whenever possible" .

That concept is reinforced by Casebook "Comment" in 9.4.5.Situation B; "It is always roughing the kicker if the contact could have been avoided regardless of whether or not it was apparent a kick would be made.  Only unavoidable contact is ignored if it is not reasonably certain a kick will be made".

The deciding factor is a judgment, EXCLUSIVELY made by the Referee whether (ANY) contact was avoidable or unavoidable, and no two kicking situations have ever, or will ever be EXACTLY alike.

[Curious]

Can any of us - let alone another player - ever be "reasonably certain" of anything these kids are going to do?  Was it reasonably certain the defender actually trying to block the kick or tackle the runner? In this scenario, if I had to make a call, it would depend on if the contact were "bang-bang" (for want of a better expression) or a count delayed.  The former gets a "pass" and the latter  .

Let's ban Rugby-style kicks  

[medi-ogre]

I tend to lean towards roughing in this scenario.  My white hat passed on the play citing the exception.  I was wing on the punting team's side and needless to say they were not impressed with the no-call. 

It was rough (see what I did there?)

[AlUpstateNY]

Can any of us - let alone another player - ever be "reasonably certain" of anything these kids are going to do?  Was it reasonably certain the defender actually trying to block the kick or tackle the runner? In this scenario, if I had to make a call, it would depend on if the contact were "bang-bang" (for want of a better expression) or a count delayed.  The former gets a "pass" and the latter  .

Let's ban Rugby-style kicks

Forgive me, but YOU CAN MAKE THE CALL when you're wearing the White Hat.  That's not intended as an argument or a challenge to your judgment, as much as this is simply the Referee's call.  The rules makers (and common sense) have never been in favor of judgment calls being decided by majority rule.  That is a slippery slope that will produce ONLY disaster.

In this case it's the EXCLUSIVE judgment of the Referee (hopefully supported by experience, rules knowledge, proper positioning and common sense) to determine what HE observes as violating the appropriate rule.  As suggested, there have never been, nor will there ever be, two football plays EXACTLY alike, so the next rugby kick, roughing situation will be ENTIRELY NEW and subject to the judgment of THAT Referee.

God willing, it will be the correct call, but either way, it will be what it will be, and hopefully the entire crew will support their Referee's judgment and decision despite external criticism or question.

[VALJ]

Can any of us - let alone another player - ever be "reasonably certain" of anything these kids are going to do?  Was it reasonably certain the defender actually trying to block the kick or tackle the runner? In this scenario, if I had to make a call, it would depend on if the contact were "bang-bang" (for want of a better expression) or a count delayed.  The former gets a "pass" and the latter  .

Let's ban Rugby-style kicks

I had one of these last year, though it wasn't on a muff.  Wilhelm (the cousin of Hans the place kicker) took the snap, ran four steps forward and to his right, then kicked the ball, and just as he got the kick off he got hit.  Wilhelm jumped up, got right in my place, and yelled "that has to be a *&^%!ing flag!"  Well, there WAS a flag, but not the one he wanted...

My commissioner happened to be in the stands and asked me after the game what happened.  I told him that I didn't have a roughing call because I wasn't sure he was kicking the ball until it went off his foot, but my decision on the USC was a simple one...

[HLinNC]

and yelled "that has to be a *&^%!ing flag!"

 I love when that question is asked/statement made

[VALJ]

Yep.  It may not be the one you want, but there sure as heck is one now...

[wvoref]

Coincidentally this was an item of discussion at our meeting Tuesday.  The general consensus among the whitehats in attendance along with most other positions was that in the case of the rugby style kicker he would probably be afforded just slightly more protection than you would a roll out passer.  Again defaulting to the principle that avoidable contact is still roughing.  I believe that a few years ago there was an instance where R hit the "punter" just as he was dropping the ball and it never made contact with his foot.  R was penalized for Roughing.  Obviously this was the wrong call as we never had a punter in this case, merely a fumbler.

[crglass]

I actually had a play this year on a rugby punt where the defender made contact as the ball was being dropped but before it was kicked.  Somehow the punter still kicked the ball and it went 20 yards downfield.  Needless to say everyone on the punting team's sideline went nuts about it, but there is no roughing as there was no kicker when the contact was made.

[pjsaul]

I actually had a play this year on a rugby punt where the defender made contact as the ball was being dropped but before it was kicked.  Somehow the punter still kicked the ball and it went 20 yards downfield.  Needless to say everyone on the punting team's sideline went nuts about it, but there is no roughing as there was no kicker when the contact was made.

Different code, but with the same definition of a kicker... this happened in an NCAA game two weeks ago: http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=12223.0

The consensus among the big boys is still RTK.

edit: I guess I should clarify that in this particular instance it was not a rugby style kick - may make a difference?

[AlUpstateNY]

Let's ban Rugby-style kicks[/color] [/quote


Hate to think of the verbiage, and subsequent back & forth that would follow trying "to ban Rugby-style kicks.

The standard has clearly, and firmly, been established, "It is always roughing the kicker if the contact could have been avoided regardless of whether or not it was apparent a kick would be made.  Only unavoidable contact is ignored if it is not reasonably certain a kick will be made". 

There CAN NEVER BE, "one size fits all", for this situation. The deciding factor is a judgment, EXCLUSIVELY made by the Referee whether (ANY) contact was avoidable or unavoidable, and no two kicking situations have ever, or will ever be EXACTLY alike.

With all due respect, being willing to make that EXCLUSIVE judgment, is part of wearing a White Hat.

[kevinlc]

This is the R's call and he should make it. I believe a philosophy much like Roughing the passer applies on the rollout, rugby style punts. If in the judgement of the R the B player could have held up on the hit, but didn't, it's a flag. They can't just light the kicker up because he's rolling out or running any more than one can light up a passer in a similar situation.