The rules are fairly clear about what constitutes a personal foul. My idea of the "normal" KCI is the gunner who simply tackles or runs into the returner before he is elgible to do so. As soon as he does something that is also a PF, i.e. striking, tripping, or block below the waist (yeah I knew you would like that one); or targeting, then he has committed another foul and opened his team up to a potential tack on situation. A "violent shoulder hit" to the chest or midsection is not a PF in most situations nor should it be in a KCI situation. However, it could be deemed "flagrant" and still qualify for a DQ.
I've been warming up to your targeting/tack on conga line, but this part where the needle skips across the record for me. how could something be flagrant enough for a DQ, but somehow NOT rise to the level of PF?
you seem to be saying the following (assume for all 3 that the return man B20 is fouled at the B-10 and Team B ends up advancing to midfield):
1. Gunner A80 is standing next to B20 and brushes up against him before the catch = flag KCI. declined
2. Gunner A80 sprints 40 yards, never slows down, and puts his
helmet into B20's chest before the ball arrives, severely injuring B20 = flags for KCI and targeting. kci declined. targeting accepted. tack on to the A-35
3. Gunner A80 sprints 40 yards, never slows down, puts his
shoulder into B20's chest before the ball arrives, severely injuring B20 = flag for KCI. A80 ejected for a flagrant foul, but it's not a personal foul. no tack on.
in for penny, in for a pound, imo. if #2 gets a tack on, how can #3 not?
