Mich St. and Baylor blocked FG

[BoBo]

Pertaining to the Kicker its not like he kicked the ball and just stood there. He immediately went forward and engaged himself into the play. He put himself there so like someone said above he is not under special protection in my eyes.  No different than a QB throwing an INT then immediately chasing the defenders with the ball.

The intent of the rule was protecting a QB or K as you wish if they are just standing there doing nothing.

[BamaRef]

First, let me say I am not questioning this crew for the no call on the field.  I know how fast this happens on the field.  I also know what it's like to have your call replayed a zillion times on TV with everyone having their opinion.

This is a great discussion play because of the elements.  Defenseless player, kicker, forcible contact all come into play.

In this play, I believe he is a defenseless player, but not because he is a kicker.  The K in this play is in the same situation you would have on a punt with a gunner turning the corner in chase and an R player peeling back for the big hit.

I haven't searched to find other angles of this hit, but have only seen the .gif that is attached in an earlier post.  Also, I did see the play live on a bar TV and watched most of the drunks celebrate this kids injury. With the editorial change in 2014, the fact that this hit appears to be "shoulder to shoulder" doesn't really have as much significance as in prior years when the rule stated "initial contact".  The "Forcible contact" edit change was made for hits with initial contact below the neck/head area and the launch or other momentum results in forcible contact to the neck/head area. The angle of the .gif is difficult to tell if forcible contact ever got to the neck/head area.  One indicator of targeting is a "launch".  To me, this fits that definition by the player "leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust..."

All kick plays are train wrecks.  Targeting is a foul you have to see start to finish and in a blocked kick scenario, that's a tough get. I wish #14 would have lowered his target area, which he easily could have done.  Then, we aren't put in this situation.  What I hate is that as long as the drunks still cheer the play, his coaches celebrate the hit and we say "that's just football", nothing will change, except more kids will just choose to play soccer.

[chymechowder]

I'd be ok with a foul for going high if you deemed the blocker went to the head/neck area.

But I'm not sure about the kicker in this instance being a "defenseless player." Yes, the book defines a defenseless player as "a kicker [...] during [the] return." But this kicker was a would-be tackler who was within 1-2 yards of the ball carrier when the block happened.

I can't think that the intent of the rule was to confer defenseless player status on a kicker who is actively trying to make a tackle and is within an arm's reach of doing so.

[goodgrr]

But I'm not sure about the kicker in this instance being a "defenseless player." Yes, the book defines a defenseless player as "a kicker [...] during [the] return." But this kicker was a would-be tackler who was within 1-2 yards of the ball carrier when the block happened.

He's not defenceless because he's the kicker; he's that because of the blindside block.

It looks really bad and I do think it's the sort of contact the rule was aimed to prevent, however his initial contact is with the shoulder.

If we have to use slow motion replay and we still have divided opinions then it would be right to go with the call on the field regardless of which side of the line it fell.

[ref6983]

He's not defenceless because he's the kicker; ...

Yes he is by the definition of defenseless player:

2-14-c. A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.

It is also a blindside block. As for the hit, I don't think any of the angles are conclusive either way.

[Diablo]

Yes he is by the definition of defenseless player:

2-14-c. A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.

I believe you meant 2-27-14-c

[ref6983]

I believe you meant 2-27-14-c

Yes...thanks for the correction.

[Kalle]

I can't think that the intent of the rule was to confer defenseless player status on a kicker who is actively trying to make a tackle and is within an arm's reach of doing so.

Well, as the rules specifically include the kicker during the return (and not just as an obviously out of play player), I think the intent definitely is to penalize high hits on the kicker even when he is going for the ball carrier.

[TXMike]

Agreed.  I seem to recall a video from a clinic RR spoke at where he was specifically asked about the kicker on the return or the passer on the int return and if they lost the defenseless classification by moving to make a play.  He was clear they did not lose it.  I do not know this to be true but perhaps when the committee discussed this they decided there was too big a chance that a player would risk DQ for the chance to eliminate one of the specialists (passer/kicker) from the other team from the game.

[JasonTX]

Moving to participate in the play does not take away the defenseless player tag that the kicker has.  Notice how the definition includes, "during the return".  The same goes for the Quarterback.  The rules protect the QB from Targeting even after an interception (or any change of possession).  Keep in mind that if the play is a half-back pass, the passer is not the one getting that protection after the interception, but still the QB, the one who took the snap is getting protection from targeting after a change of possession

So, what is the intent and why do two "special" positions of Kicker and QB get protection?  It's quite simple.  In the past there have been players on Team B who have been designated to put a hit on the kicker and QB on changes of possession.  So, if you target both of those positions then a foul is committed.