Roughing the kicker question

[Dorky]

Hi folks,

I apologize if this has been asked in the NFHS forum, but I searched and couldn't find. Here's the play.

A 4/20 A30. QB A18 takes a hand to hand snap and pitches the ball backward to A44. A44 takes the ball and runs to his right. As he is running at the A20, he punts the ball (i.e. rugby style). The ball rolls out of bounds at the B15.

After A44 kicks the ball, he is contacted by B99. A foul for roughing the kicker is called.

So, a robust discussion has ensued. Can roughing the kicker be called here? A44 is a kicker when he kicks the ball...however, if the contact is unavoidable then roughing the kicker can not be called (9-4-5a). We've been saying for awhile now that if the during a rugby style kick that the kicker loses his protection since it's not reasonably certain that a kick will be made. He can still be personally fouled, but roughing cannot be called.

Then we read the case book play 9-4-5 Situation B and the comment and now we are not sure.

Hopefully, this makes sense and someone can offer some opinions.

[HLinNC]

The comment is self-explanatory.  Just because  A44 runs is not carte blanche for B to do whatever they want.  Note the comment uses the term "always" in conjunction with "if the contact could have been avoided".

R must rule on the avoidability (?word?) of the contact.

[bama_stripes]

As an R, I would ask myself:

Had the defender already committed to a tackle?
Did he renew his charge after the kick?
Did he intentionally contact the kicker after he realized a kick had been made?

[Ralph Damren]

A rule of thumb we use is : If the defender was trying to tackle the scrambling kicker = no foul because he didn't think he was going to kick it. If the defender was trying to block the kick, misses the ball but not the kicker = foul because he knew he was.

[maven]

As an R, I would ask myself:

Had the defender already committed to a tackle?
Did he renew his charge after the kick?
Did he intentionally contact the kicker after he realized a kick had been made?

Can roughing be called? Absolutely.

Should it be called? That's a judgment call for R. Bama and Ralph offer useful guidelines for that decision.

[Dorky]

First, I appreciate the comments. Good stuff and great thoughts for discussion.

I think our (meaning: our local discussion) trouble is the outlook regarding roughing. We're under the same idea that B does not get carte blanche just because A44 runs. However, I think we're making a mistake by saying that A44 cannot be roughed, but he can be fouled by way of personal foul (think of NCAA rule/philosophy).

With that in mind, is it more accurate to say that in Federation, a player can still be roughed? Whereas in NCAA, there is more latitude? That's kinda what I am starting to think after reading the comment section and your comments.

I understand the criteria/judgement for roughing and agree with the comments here.

I guess my basic statement is this. In FED, once a player legally kicks a ball, he's a kicker and is afforded protection as any other kicker. This is different as, say, NCAA where the defense cannot be called for roughing the kicker in this situation, but can be called for a personal foul.

Is this making any sense or am I making a mountain out of a moehill 

Thanks!

[maven]

Yes, for NFHS, once he makes a (legal) kick, he is a kicker and is protected by rule. Your situation represents a potential application of 9-4-5a, as you've already noted. Whether that exception applies is a judgment call for the R.

You (or members of your association) are mistaken to think that illegal contact such a kicker cannot be roughing. If, for example, the R judges that the exception in 9-4-5a does NOT apply, what basis would you provide for claiming that this is not roughing?

Indeed, the existence of the exception presupposes that roughing is still possible, right?

[Dorky]

You (or members of your association) are mistaken to think that illegal contact such a kicker cannot be roughing. If, for example, the R judges that the exception in 9-4-5a does NOT apply, what basis would you provide for claiming that this is not roughing?

Our basis is that we would call a foul, just not roughing (i.e. personal foul). The problem with this is that although a foul is called, as you know, one carries an automatic first down, the other does not.

This started because a statement was made that if a player is running around (for whatever reason, rugby style, muffed snapp, fake, etc) and then kicked the ball, he loses his protection as a kicker. However, he can still be fouled, just the foul cannot be called roughing because it was not obvious a kick would be made. So, in other words if he gets hit while a kicker and its either a personal foul or nothing.

We all nodded our heads like good little sheep, until a robust discussion ensued with a guy who noted that you can still be roughed. Now, we're coming around that if the player who legally kicks the ball is contacted, you could have nothing, personal foul or roughing the kicker.

[HLinNC]

This is why the WH makes more than everyone else, right?

then kicked the ball, he loses his protection as a kicker.

 If anybody in the group had read the rule AND the case play how could one not make the point that the one who posed this theory was incorrect.

[Dorky]

Read the rule? AND the casebook? Surely, you jest! 

The WH makes all the money....as a Linesman, I work strictly from assumption and preconceived notions. 

[maven]

Our basis is that we would call a foul, just not roughing (i.e. personal foul).

That's not a basis. I'm asking for a rule.

Hint: there is no NFHS rule that states that a kicker who runs a bit first necessarily and completely loses his protection.

[AlUpstateNY]

If you pick at any scab long enough, you can make it bleed.  The 1st exception to a defensive player for "Roughing/Runnining Into the Kicker (NF:9.4.5) is: (a) Contact is unavoidable because it is not reasonably certain that a kick will be made.  For better, or worse, this involves a judgment call that is unique to each and every incident.

To avoid violating the rule, the contact must be "unavoidable", for which there is no NFHS definition.  A dictionary definition is, :"than cannot be avoided; inevitable", and is further described by "not reasonably certain that a kick will be made", that lack of certainty lends itself more to a rugby style kick, than a standard punt, and usually provides extended leeway.  However, the ultimate judgment is based on the sole perspective of the Referee, who one must presume considered both factors before rendering judgment. 

NF:2.32.8, specifically defines when a player becomes a kicker and when how long he continues to be a "kicker".  Any contact, during that interval, judged to be illegal would be appropriately Roughing/Running into the kicker.  That player, prior to becomming a kicker, or after ceasing to be a kicker, would be protected by any of the rules governing other players.

The running (rugby style) kick only adds to the difficulty of this judgement. Ralph provided a logical and rational perspective to assist in arriving at the proper judgment, but each judgment that is made will be unique based on what is specifically observed.  You should be warned, and aware, that universal agreement with whatever judgment is ultimately rendered is exceptionally rare.

[Dorky]

Well stated Al.

Thank you everyone for taking the time to comment and discuss.

Dorky

[Atlanta Blue]

This started because a statement was made that if a player is running around (for whatever reason, rugby style, muffed snapp, fake, etc) and then kicked the ball, he loses his protection as a kicker.

It's that statement that got you in trouble.  It's simply not true!  Bad assumption leads to a bad ruling.

[dch]

A player is a kicker once the ball has been kicked just as a player is a passer once the ball is released.  Prior to kicking or passing the player with the ball is a runner.  These scrambling situations are pretty similar regarding roughing the kicker or passer.  Once the ball is away the defense needs avoid or minimize the contact.  Of course there is more of a burden on the defense if the play involves a punter that just catches the ball and immediately kicks it (as expected).
Can there be a 5 yard running into the kicker call on the scramble type play?

[maven]

A player is a kicker once the ball has been kicked just as a player is a passer once the ball is released.  Prior to kicking or passing the player with the ball is a runner.  These scrambling situations are pretty similar regarding roughing the kicker or passer.  Once the ball is away the defense needs avoid or minimize the contact.  Of course there is more of a burden on the defense if the play involves a punter that just catches the ball and immediately kicks it (as expected).
Can there be a 5 yard running into the kicker call on the scramble type play?

Careful: kickers and passers are defined in terms of legal kicks and legal forward passes. Illegal kicks and passes, and backward passes, afford the player no protections. See 2-32-8 and 11

To answer your question: yes, sure, if you can have roughing you can have running into. I'd consider a flag if the scrambling kicker stopped, set for a traditional style punt, and the defender made a traditional play on the ball but hit the kicking leg.

[WCFB]

As an R, I would ask myself:

Had the defender already committed to a tackle?
Did he renew his charge after the kick?
Did he intentionally contact the kicker after he realized a kick had been made?

This is the thought process that should be used in cases like the OP. Since the kick has become unconventional from a normal scrimmage kick, we need to judge the point at which B would  have a reasonable amount of time to adjust, and rule if the contact is roughing by philosophy. If no RTK, but subsequent UNR, then assess PF, but I think we slightly adjust some latitude for B in this situation, discuss RTK as we have more book rule guidance from the FED for this.

[TampaSteve]

Al quoted the rule.
If a rugby kick, treat it like a QB scrambling.  He 'may be' a runner; he 'may be a passer'.
He aint a passer til he passes.
Likewise, he aint a kicker til he kicks it.
That said, a kicker aint protected from anything until he becomes a kicker.
THEN once he is a kicker, in our scenario a rugby kicker, B would have to make reasonable attempt to not rough the kicker.
Where it's interesting is when the soon-to-be kicker is rolling out, B is pursuing him as a runner. K can kick it in one step.
So we have to determine whether B/R was reasonably certain (while chasing a runner) that this player was now a kicker. 
Seems B/R is potentially given similar (not identical) leeway of roughing/displacing K that is given to B on a passer who just released the ball.