« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: The "huggers"  (Read 8916 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8773
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
The "huggers"
« on: September 18, 2012, 07:00:06 PM »
Why can’t these guys just coach???  Allegedly  a HS HC from 'round these parts has his punt cover guys “hug” the returner after every fair catch.  They do not do so roughly, just come up and hug them.  I say foul.  I would warn him pregame not to have kids do it but if they do, flag and 15  (Worse part is we had a crew tell opposing coach it was perfectly legal!!!)
Logged

Offline JasonTX

  • *
  • Posts: 2985
  • FAN REACTION: +113/-59
Re: The "huggers"
« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2012, 07:20:22 PM »
What is the purpose of doing that?
Logged

maven

  • Guest
Re: The "huggers"
« Reply #2 on: September 18, 2012, 07:21:19 PM »
UNS? Hard to sell that as a PF, isn't it?
Logged

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8773
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: The "huggers"
« Reply #3 on: September 18, 2012, 07:24:05 PM »
Are you allowed to "block" someone who has completed  a fair catch?  What is the definition of "block"?
Logged

Offline jg-me

  • *
  • Posts: 416
  • FAN REACTION: +22/-4
Re: The "huggers"
« Reply #4 on: September 18, 2012, 08:59:39 PM »
Better yet, check the definition of 'tackle' - it seems a lot like the definition of hugging.
Logged

Offline InsideTheStripes

  • *
  • Posts: 272
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-5
Re: The "huggers"
« Reply #5 on: September 19, 2012, 02:07:27 AM »
'Coaching' like this... gets players hurt.
Logged

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3418
  • FAN REACTION: +114/-35
Re: The "huggers"
« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2012, 02:13:44 AM »
I'm with Mike here. The player making the fair catch is protected from being blocked, and "blocking is obstructing an opponent by contacting him with any part of the blocker’s body." Hugging is obstruction with contact, so flag it, and if the coach complains, flag him too for not coaching his players to play football.
Logged

Offline InsideTheStripes

  • *
  • Posts: 272
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-5
Re: The "huggers"
« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2012, 02:43:41 AM »
Quote from: Kalle on September 19, 2012, 02:13:44 AM
I'm with Mike here. The player making the fair catch is protected from being blocked, and "blocking is obstructing an opponent by contacting him with any part of the blocker’s body." Hugging is obstruction with contact, so flag it, and if the coach complains, flag him too for not coaching his players to play football.

What is R obstructed from doing during the dead ball?

If you want to invent a foul because this practice offends your sensibilities, go with USC (9-2-1-a-1).  Surely, the point of the hug is to either demean or provoke ill will.

Logged

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3418
  • FAN REACTION: +114/-35
I'Re: The "huggers"
« Reply #8 on: September 19, 2012, 03:11:10 AM »
I'm not inventing a foul. There is contact that is intended to obstruct the receiver and scare him. Nowhere in the rules does it say that blocking needs to have "force". I do admit that I may be slightly stretching the definition, but unless my supervisor (or RR) tells me otherwise, I'd flag this as a 6-5-5 foul. I would obviously tell the coach in the pre-game conference that I'd flag it, if the coach tells me they're doing it.

If they want do something, have them offer to shake hands, that I wouldn't call blocking :)
Logged

Offline Osric Pureheart

  • *
  • Posts: 592
  • FAN REACTION: +18/-7
  • 1373937 or 308?
Re: The "huggers"
« Reply #9 on: September 19, 2012, 07:36:50 AM »
Makes me wonder if, somewhere in the dim and distant past, he had a situation where the other team called a fair catch and the B missed the signal and the returner took off running and the play was allowed to continue.  It's the only reason I can think of for coaching it.
Logged

maven

  • Guest
Re: The "huggers"
« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2012, 08:35:51 AM »
Quote from: Kalle on September 19, 2012, 02:13:44 AM
... and if the coach complains, flag him too for not coaching his players to play football.

Like.  eAt&
Logged

El Macman

  • Guest
Re: The "huggers"
« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2012, 08:45:21 AM »
Quote from: Osric Pureheart on September 19, 2012, 07:36:50 AM
Makes me wonder if, somewhere in the dim and distant past, he had a situation where the other team called a fair catch and the B missed the signal and the returner took off running and the play was allowed to continue.  It's the only reason I can think of for coaching it.

No. Nnnno. It is nothing but an attempt to intimidate, plain and simple.

When he 'hugs' the opponent, he has grasped or encircled him - the very definition of a 'tackle.' And no player that has completed a fair catch may be tackled.
Flag him. Then we won't have to debate this any more.

We all need to understand that a 'tackle' does not necessarily mean that the BC has been taken to the ground, or that the ball is dead. Test questions that use the term 'tackle' to mean the BC is down or the ball is dead are doing us a disfavor. But, we get 'em quite frequently.
Logged

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2465
  • FAN REACTION: +95/-15
Re: I'Re: The "huggers"
« Reply #12 on: September 20, 2012, 01:59:34 PM »
Quote from: Kalle on September 19, 2012, 03:11:10 AM
I'm not inventing a foul. There is contact that is intended to obstruct the receiver and scare him. Nowhere in the rules does it say that blocking needs to have "force". I do admit that I may be slightly stretching the definition, but unless my supervisor (or RR) tells me otherwise, I'd flag this as a 6-5-5 foul. I would obviously tell the coach in the pre-game conference that I'd flag it, if the coach tells me they're doing it.

If they want do something, have them offer to shake hands, that I wouldn't call blocking :)

 LOL

How about a simple holding foul?  Hugging a guy is pretty much a textbook hold, isn't it?
Logged

Offline sj_31

  • *
  • Posts: 109
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-0
Re: The "huggers"
« Reply #13 on: September 20, 2012, 02:42:37 PM »
Maybe I'm missing something, but I've never thrown a dead-ball holding... unless you count the times I've thrown during live ball and then it turned out that action was dead "after further review"  :)
Logged

Offline dvasques

  • *
  • Posts: 508
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-2
Re: The "huggers"
« Reply #14 on: September 22, 2012, 06:02:51 PM »
So, if you flag this act as holding, and the fair catch kills the ball, then you're flagging for unnecessary roughness?
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »