RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: rickref on September 24, 2010, 12:56:29 PM
-
4th down and scrimmage kick formation. Upback takes snap and pitches back to "punter" who is 10 yards behind LOS. Does this punter still get afforded roughing the kicker protection?
-
As long as he is still within the tackle box, I believe he does. Would be no different than if the snap rolled back to him. I see nothing that says the snap must go direct to the kicker.
-
If the kick is your normal punt, then there's protection, as it will be obvious that a kick is being made. If it is a quick kick, it's no longer obvious as this might be a trick running play.
-
was this clearly a scrimmage kick formation? Was the kicker in position to recieve the snap or was the up back between him and snapper? I could see problems depending on the alignment of the backs.
-
scrimmage kick formation means that
a) no player is under center - check
b) at least one player is 7 yds or more back - check
c) it is obvious that a kick may be attempted - check
-
I think this is the point "it is obvious that a kick may be attempted"
If its not an obvious kick formation then I have a problem with "total" protection of the kicker under the rules.
-
scrimmage kick formation means that
c) it is obvious that a kick may be attempted - check
When the ball is snapped to a player who is less than 7 yards deep it would appear to me that it is a fake. When the defense sees that ball go to an upback and then passed backwards to another deeper player I am sure they are thinking the same thing. Don't snap it short if you want protection.
-
Strictly speaking, the RTK rule doesn't mention SKFs.
9-1-4-a says RTK is prohibited "when it is obvious a scrimmage kick may be made" - not whenever Team A snaps from a SKF.
Even if Team A snaps the ball from a SKF, it might cease to be obvious that a kick might be made, if they do something weird - like snap it to the upback. You have to judge whether a kick is still *obviously possible.*
Problem is, one could argue either side. If the upback fakes a forward pass, or tucks the ball and runs sideways, then surely a kick would no longer appear likely. But if the upback instead immediately passes the ball to the punter, and the punter immediately begins his technique, one could make the argument that a kick still appears likely, and that the punter is protected from roughing. But one could just as easily argue that this screams FAKE simply because it's unusual, and thus a kick is no longer likely.
Also, I can think of cases where the converse is true - a kick can appear likely even when an SKF is not present. Suppose a field goal holder lines up less than seven yards back. Technically not an SKF, but an obvious kick possibility nonetheless.
-
But if the upback instead immediately passes the ball to the punter, and the punter immediately begins his technique, one could make the argument that a kick still appears likely, and that the punter is protected from roughing.
Actually, "likely" isn't enough. It must be "obvious". I personally might award protection to the kicker, if the relay action of the upback is immediate and the kicker does the full "normal" punt motion. And with these qualifiers, I probably wouldn't award the protection ever in a game :)
-
I was referring to this:
"was this clearly a scrimmage kick formation? Was the kicker in position to recieve the snap or was the up back between him and snapper? I could see problems depending on the alignment of the backs."
At the moment of the snap it is, by definition, a scrimmage kick position.