What would you have?

[Brian26]

This one has been discussed in our association and we have several different opinions. No penalty or penalty and if so what would the penalty be?

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1172390933984568

[Fatso]

Clean imo. Hit is to the chest, not neck or head area.  "Punter" was still a runner, not a kicker at the time of hit.

[dammitbobby]

Agreed - AR 9-1-16-II makes it clear that the there is no kicker until the ball is kicked.

[sj]

I don't have a foul either. But while there is no UNS here either, Caiden needs to stop thinking so highly of himself. Nobody blocked him and he caught an opponent on one leg and off balance.

[Fatso]

Parents should be penalized 15 for naming the kid "Caiden".   

[KDJBBBJ]

I agree no roughing the kicker, but What about a hit on a defenseless player?

[Ted T]

Perfectly fits the definition of a defenseless player.  15 yards (and maybe some day an automatic 1st down.)

[Fatso]

Perfectly fits the definition of a defenseless player.  15 yards (and maybe some day an automatic 1st down.)

  How so?  Until the ball touches his foot, he is still a runner. 

[GoodScout]

Illegal hit on a defenseless player. 15 yards.
It's not RTK because there was no kick, so no automatic first down. (High school doesn't use AR's, but it's still common sense).
The definition of a defenseless player is "A player who, because of his physical position and focus of concentration, is especially vulnerable to injury." (2-33-16). This player clearly fits that definition.
If I'm looking at Caiden's recruiting video, I'm not impressed. I would think "Million-dollar body, 2-cent head."

Plus, Caiden.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Reference is actually 2-32-16 and I would tend to agree that he is in fact by definition a defenseless player.  This could be called for the force of the "big hit" here, but if he simply "wrapped up" which he could have easily done, then I would have nothing.

[Fatso]

Reference is actually 2-32-16 and I would tend to agree that he is in fact by definition a defenseless player.  This could be called for the force of the "big hit" here, but if he simply "wrapped up" which he could have easily done, then I would have nothing.

Can a runner be defenseless?  I was always under the impression that a runner is never defenseless but I don't see any rules confirming that specifically.

[dammitbobby]

Can a runner be defenseless?  I was always under the impression that a runner is never defenseless but I don't see any rules confirming that specifically.

Not sure about Fed but under NCAA, yes - 'A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped' is considered defenseless.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Can a runner be defenseless?  I was always under the impression that a runner is never defenseless but I don't see any rules confirming that specifically.

Carefully read Rule 2-32-16, it's there.

[Fatso]

Carefully read Rule 2-32-16, it's there.

What's there?  Sorry, I don't know what you mean exactly.  I assume you're referring to the general definition of defenseless player. But, I've never read any rules/examples of a runner being defenseless (but I also haven't read that a runner can't be defenseless either).  I'm not disagreeing with you, just talking through it.

What I do see are two references to a "runner" both with added circumstances:
e. a runner already in the grasp of a tackler and forward progress has been stopped
g. a player on the ground including a runner who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet first.

I don't see how the play in the OP is any different that a QB getting sacked hard while focusing his eyes on his receiver and doesn't see the hit coming.  As long as he still has the ball, he is a runner and it's not a foul to hit him. 

[GoodScout]

I think it's a pretty easy judgment call that the player in this clip - whatever he's doing - meets the definition of "a player who, because of his physical position and focus of concentration, is especially vulnerable to injury."  I'm not sure why we keep fishing for "he's a runner so it's OK."

[Fatso]

I think it's a pretty easy judgment call that the player in this clip - whatever he's doing - meets the definition of "a player who, because of his physical position and focus of concentration, is especially vulnerable to injury."  I'm not sure why we keep fishing for "he's a runner so it's OK."

Him being a runner means he's in possession of the football, that makes a huge difference.

What would you have in these scenarios (assuming hit was similar to the OP)?
- Right handed QB drops back, he's looking across the field to his left at his receiver, an unblocked defender coming from his front side hits him forcefully in the chest.  QB doesn't see him coming.
- Running back has his head turned to the left while alluding a pursuing would-be tackler, another defender comes from right side and hits him forcefully in the chest.  RB didn't see him coming.

[dammitbobby]

Him being a runner means he's in possession of the football, that makes a huge difference.

What would you have in these scenarios (assuming hit was similar to the OP)?
- Right handed QB drops back, he's looking across the field to his left at his receiver, an unblocked defender coming from his front side hits him forcefully in the chest.  QB doesn't see him coming.
- Running back has his head turned to the left while alluding a pursuing would-be tackler, another defender comes from right side and hits him forcefully in the chest.  RB didn't see him coming.

It doesn't make any difference at all - is there a rule that says runners are never defenseless? The rule quoted doesn't have possession as a requirement to be considered not defenseless.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Him being a runner means he's in possession of the football, that makes a huge difference.

What would you have in these scenarios (assuming hit was similar to the OP)?
- Right handed QB drops back, he's looking across the field to his left at his receiver, an unblocked defender coming from his front side hits him forcefully in the chest.  QB doesn't see him coming.
- Running back has his head turned to the left while alluding a pursuing would-be tackler, another defender comes from right side and hits him forcefully in the chest.  RB didn't see him coming.

Are we watching the same video???  He without question is in the process of kicking and meets to the letter the rule for a defenseless player.  Also, his foot actually does make contact with the ball.  If you want to ignore the over the top contact then fine but I've got no problem with a 15 yarder here (either UNR or RTK).  If this was a simple wrap-up tackle I'm OK with that, but this is a flag without question IMHO.