REPLY: Yes. he may have given up his right to "legally" participate in the play, but what if the Giant receiver comes up that sideline and the Viking player does return to participate (illegally). He may be the only person between the receiver and a big gain. And take it one step further. Suppose he reaches in from OOB and tackles the Giant receiver. So...should the OOB Viking player still be considered 'untouchable?'
I understand the side of the discussion that says there is no specific rule that says it is illegal to block an opponent who is out of bounds. But let me pose this question- If you take the stance that it is not illegal to block a player who is out of bounds, how far out of bounds can you go before it does become illegal- if it ever does? Into the coaches box? into the team area? beyond that? Where do you draw the line?
It is my opinion that officials are tasked with applying the rules to each situation as it occurs. If a player steps out of bounds and immediately attempts to come back in, I don't believe I have the same call. But that is based on the fact that IN MY OPINION, K is not attempting to gain an unfair advantage by his action, and it may not have been possible for R to realize in that brief moment that K was out of bounds.
In THIS case however, I believe that because the K player took himself out of the play, and because he did not attempt to immediately return, his further participation in the play would have resulted in a foul, it is unecessary for R to block him. Therefore, unnecessary roughness.
If K does participate illegally, then obviously, there is a foul and a penalty proscribed for that foul.
Taking your supposition that K's illegal participation prevents R from either a long gain, or ultimately, a touchdown, the rules give the referee the authority to award a penalty upto and including a score.
For me, I am more comfortable with the view that action should occur as much as possible within the field of play. I realize that there will be times when contact occurs outside the lines, and those cases should be judged individually. In this particular case, I believe the block was unnecessary.
.