Kicker by definition. Didn’t take the ball out of tackle box. Obvious a kick might be attempted.
Protection afforded.
Not at all disagreeing, but the bold and italicized language above is the critical element of the rule that requires interpretation by somebody above us. The rule was written to govern a ‘normal’ and obvious scrimmage kick situation, which is a snap directly to the kicker. What would be the purpose of snapping to another player first? That would be to momentarily distract the rushers, to greatly reduce the likelihood of a block. In that case, it is no longer obvious a kick will be made. There’s where the Sec-Ed - whomever he might be - would hang his hat, if he ruled this to be outside the intent of the rule, thus, the kicker is not protected.
Conversely, the argument to provide protection would be simple player safety. The argument could be made that, when the kicker received the ball, it was still obvious a kick would be made. There is where the Sec-Ed would hang his hat, if he ruled that this is within the intent of the rule, thus, the kicker is protected.
My opinion doesn’t count, but, I would rule that the indirect snap would be outside the intent of the rule, thus, the kicker is not protected.
Hope I don’t ever see it, at least until we get a formal interpretation.
Robert
