Muffed snap during punt situation.

[Rosiu]

Hi everybody,

I ran into a situation yesterday that eventually made me and some of my friends thinking if I was right. I was R during Polish PLFA II game (lower level). 4th down, obvious scrimmage kick formation, but a low snap, that basically slid on the ground towards P. As P managed to pick the ball from the ground the band was already approaching, though he still tried to establish his kicking position until he got rammed. My call was no flag, but during the halftime my U challenged that, saying that the P didn't lose the protection the the rules give him. So it came to AR 9-1-4-VI, and the thing is if in that case "it became obvious" that he wants too punt a little too late, as the D-men were approaching at full speed and he barely managed to stand and move the ball to the front of his leg, and <added>kick the ball (quite shallow, but it was kicked) and then he got hit</added>. Before deciding not to flag it I just picture a situation in my mind that the approaching D-men come to a halt and stay around the P with their arms high, not touching him. It does look ridicoulous but that's the only alternative they could utilize at that certain situation.
And now the question is: was the R right or was the U right? And - whatever the previous answer is - why?

Thanks in advance!

PS: I just consulted with my U and added a more detailed explanation.

[Osric Pureheart]

For me this is entirely in the eye of the beholder.  There's many things a kicker can do that make it no longer obvious that he wants to kick the ball; but I do also think that you have to assume it's obvious until he positively does something to have you believe otherwise.

As for what the defenders should do - if in doubt, play the ball not the man, which also has the happy side effect of increasing the chance of a fumble or block.

[El Macman]

Being in a scrimmage kick formation has nothing to do with running into or roughing the kicker, so we can discount that element. And, just because the snapped ball touched the ground, that does not change anything about running into/roughing the kicker rules. So, we can discount that, too.
 
The only criterion, then, is the judgment as to whether or not it was obvious a scrimmage kick would be made (not 'might' be made, but 'would' be made). If you think it was still obvious he would make a kick, then you should have thrown a flag. But, if you don't think it was obvious, then no foul.

By what you describe, like Osric, it sounds as though it was initially obvious, and he didn't do anything to make it seem otherwise. Since he was able to recover the ball, and immediately get into a kicking motion, it sounds like it was still obvious he was going to kick the ball. Assuming he made no side-step, or any hesitation after recovering the ball, I'd say he had protection, and roughing should have been called. But, that's based on writtten description. I might change my mind completely, if I saw some good video.
 

[With_Two_Flakes]

Being in a scrimmage kick formation has nothing to do with running into or roughing the kicker, so we can discount that element.

Understand what you are saying that the Rules do not talk about formation. But in real terms, it does add to the "obvious-ness" of a scrimmage kick.

And, just because the snapped ball touched the ground, that does not change anything about running into/roughing the kicker rules.

Agreed. Indeed AR 9-1-4-VI talks about a poor snap not automatically removing kicker protection.
 
I'll add that just because the NCAA recently removed kicker protection in certain circumstances (if the kicker runs with the ball outside the tackle box) that doesn't mean that a bad snap removes it. If all the kid does is move to recover a poor snap, then it isn't yet certain that he means to do anything other than try to kick it. If he takes off on a run for a few steps, that's different.

If Kristof can get the film of the play, happy to view it...

[DD]

He is not a kicker unless he kicks the ball. No foul for roughing the kicker.  You can have a PF.

[Rosiu]

@DD: So what about the situation when punter's plant leg get attacked when he extends the kicking leg to kick the ball and then gets tackled? By rule it should be roughing the kicker, as - it's how I understand - the rule is ment to protect the fragile players, such as kickers/punters and holders... If I understand you right - it should'nt be flagged as he didn't become the kicker yet, right?
@Steve: Unfortunately in PLFA II videos aren't obligatory. However I got info that they made some unofficial one and I'm doing my best to get it.

[Kalle]

If I understand you right - it should'nt be flagged as he didn't become the kicker yet, right?

Yes, any contact before the player actually contacts the ball with his kicking leg cannot be roughing (or running into) the kicker. Obviously, when in doubt the player has become the kicker.

[Rosiu]

Right, means that until now I had a little more strict mind approach to such cases, however didn't have an opportunity to throw RTK yet. Looking forward to have the video from the host team then, it will hopefully make things clearer.

[DD]

Kalle did a fine job of answering your question.

[The Ref Thats Lef]

and don't get hung up on just roughing the kicker. This play has been put on a UK chat board asking how it was not roughing the kicker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0J89vUWH7X4

Now because of the angle we cannot be certain that the ball is not tipped but even if it is is this action legal? Has the white hat got himself so focused on the ball being touched and so not calling roughing the kicker that he misses something?

[Kalle]

Good question. The kicker does go through the normal kicking motion so this is not a quick kick, and the defender obviously thinks the kicker is going to kick the ball as he has his hands high to block the kick. It seems to me that both of these together mean that it must be obvious that a kick is going to be made -> 15 yards. But, this is borderline, there isn't that much time between the possession and the kick.

Then again, he leads with his foot, so I think it should be a PF anyway, even if you don't call it RTK.

[The Ref Thats Lef]

Then again, he leads with his foot, so I think it should be a PF anyway, even if you don't call it RTK.

and that was my point. You can get so focused on RTK that you might miss something else.