A Couple Plays

[Curious]

Play 1:

Eligible A87 goes O/O/B on his own while running his route.  A10's pass toward A87 is intercepted by B40. As A87 is attempting to return in bounds to make a play on B40, he is held and prevented from returning by non-player B56.

Is/are there one, two, or no fouls on this play?

Play 2:

K3 punts under a heavy rush.  R50, and R77 are near K3 but are picked up by K blockers.  R90 is late to the party and never threatens the punter.  Following his kick, and before K3 has regained his balance, R90 forceably throws blocker K20 (who has turned his attention from blocking) into and underneath K3 .  R90 never actually makes physical contact with K3.

Do we have any foul here?   

[HLinNC]

Play 1- no foul on A87 as he never returned.  IP on B56- 9-6-3.


Play 2- at a minimum, defensive holding, as to "forcibly throw" K20 he would have had to use his hands to grasp an opponent to restrain him as a prelude to the throw.  In reality sounds to me that 9-4-3b on Illegal Personal Contact is the appropriate foul, if you're going to call it.

[Atlanta Blue]

If your issue is, "Can R pushing a blocker into a punter be roughing?", in general, the answer is no.  K should keep their blockers out of the way.

But as HL points out, that doesn't mean R didn't do something illegal to the blocker.

[Curious]

Play 1- no foul on A87 as he never returned. IP on B56- 9-6-3.

Since A87 couldn't legally return without fouling, short of B56 committing a personal foul, SHOULD we (I know we CAN by rule) penalize him for holding A87? By grabbing him, B56 actually prevents A87 from committing a foul....


Play 2- at a minimum, defensive holding, as to "forcibly throw" K20 he would have had to use his hands to grasp an opponent to restrain him as a prelude to the throw.  In reality sounds to me that 9-4-3b on Illegal Personal Contact is the appropriate foul, if you're going to call it.

If your issue is, "Can R pushing a blocker into a punter be roughing?", in general, the answer is no.  K should keep their blockers out of the way.

 But as HL points out, that doesn't mean R didn't do something illegal to the blocker.

That is my point guys; so the question really is can RTK ever be committed without direct "contact" by R?  CB 9.4.5C speaks to "charging through a blocker and charges into the kicker".  It's not, in the CB play, clear if R was contacting the blocker when contact with the kicker occurred - or if it was direct contact by R....

Finally, AB, what does "generally" mean?  I expected you to say "if R breathed heavily on the kicker, it was RTK"

[AlUpstateNY]

That is my point guys; so the question really is can RTK ever be committed without direct "contact" by R?  CB 9.4.5C speaks to "charging through a blocker and charges into the kicker".  It's not, in the CB play, clear if R was contacting the blocker when contact with the kicker occurred - or if it was direct contact by R....

Finally, AB, what does "generally" mean?  I expected you to say "if R breathed heavily on the kicker, it was RTK"

The foul is "Running into or Roughing the kicker or holder", which includes, ""contact that displaces the kicker or holder without roughing; nor block, tackle or charge into the kicker of a scrimmage kick, or place kick holder other than when: a through d." 

It would seem if the "blocker" you are referring to happens to be the "holder" displacing him would trigger the penalty.  If the contact is on anyone else, it doesn't appear they are protected, unless as previously suggested, the contact involved a personal foul" which would be action against the blocker, rather than the kicker.

[Atlanta Blue]

Finally, AB, what does "generally" mean?  I expected you to say "if R breathed heavily on the kicker, it was RTK"

That's fair, I should have left out the "in general".

Yes, breathing on a kicker is roughing.  But I also have little time for a blocker that backs up into or near his own kicker.  Now he's a weapon that a good rusher can use against the kicker.

In JV practice the other day, the personal protector got a punt right up his backside because he backed up instead of stepping forward and blocking.  Strong punter nailed him from about 3' away.  I think it was worse than anything the rusher could have done to him.

[Rulesman]

Have you gotten the ball back yet? 

[AlUpstateNY]

Have you gotten the ball back yet? 

Do you really want the ball back?

[bossman72]

That is my point guys; so the question really is can RTK ever be committed without direct "contact" by R?  CB 9.4.5C speaks to "charging through a blocker and charges into the kicker".  It's not, in the CB play, clear if R was contacting the blocker when contact with the kicker occurred - or if it was direct contact by R....

Finally, AB, what does "generally" mean?  I expected you to say "if R breathed heavily on the kicker, it was RTK"

Much like K blocking R into the returner is not KCI, R blocking K into the kicker is not RRK or RNK.

[Curious]

In JV practice the other day, the personal protector got a punt right up his backside because he backed up instead of stepping forward and blocking.  Strong punter nailed him from about 3' away.  I think it was worse than anything the rusher could have done to him.

True story.

Working a Detroit Public School League game years ago.  Now, it's always been well known that kicking (the ball that is) in the PSL was, and still is, quite a "challenge" for those who are otherwise pretty good athletes; but this one left us all - I mean everybody there - on the ground laughing...

K80 lines up in punting formation.  Incredibly, the snap is pretty good.  A blocker is about three steps in front of the kicker.  After taking the snap K80 attempts to kick the ball, completely misses it, and kicks his blocker right in the caboose!  This may or may not have hurt physically more than your kicker's punt; but, psychologically, the blocker (legend has it) is still in therapy