Blocked punt or Roughing the Kicker?

[Hwy17 352]

Too bad I don't have a video clip of this.  Here's what happened - Two defenders rushing the kick get to the punter; the first defender blocks the punt as the second defender hits the kicker after the punt is blocked.  The punter never fully extended his leg. The ball bounces off the ground and then the first defender catches it in the end-zone for what appears to be a touchdown.  The officials throw a flag for roughing the kicker.  Having seen a lot of blocked punts before, I've never seen a roughing the kicker call on a block.  

[nolebull813 584]

If the ball gets touched by the defender before the punter gets hit then it’s a blocked kick 

[Steinbrenner Warriors 45]

Agreed. If the ball was clearly touched it matters not if the kicker was hit after in terms of a penalty flag... it is a block

[Perspective 295]

Florida follows the NFHS rules (except when they don't  . . . and this does not appear to be one of those times where Florida has a different or modified rule).  

Per the 2018 NFHS FOOTBALL RULES BOOK

 

Running into or roughing the kicker or holder. A defensive

player shall neither run into the kicker nor holder, which is contact that

displaces the kicker or holder without roughing; nor block, tackle or

charge into the kicker of a scrimmage kick, or the place-kick holder, other

than when:

a. Contact is unavoidable because it is not reasonably certain that a

kick will be made.

b. The defense touches the kick near the kicker and contact is

unavoidable.

c. Contact is slight and is partially caused by movement of the

kicker.

d. Contact is caused by R being blocked into the kicker or holder by

K.

(emphasis added)

I don't see anything in the 2019 changes that apply.   It would appear that the officials missed this one.   The only possible argument that they might have is that the hit by the defender who actually ran into the punter was 'avoidable contact,' which would be a judgment call.   

 

 

 

 

[badbird 1,364]

Was contact unavoidable?

[Hwy17 352]

2 hours ago, Perspective said:

Florida follows the NFHS rules (except when they don't  . . . and this does not appear to be one of those times where Florida has a different or modified rule).  

Per the 2018 NFHS FOOTBALL RULES BOOK

 

Running into or roughing the kicker or holder. A defensive

player shall neither run into the kicker nor holder, which is contact that

displaces the kicker or holder without roughing; nor block, tackle or

charge into the kicker of a scrimmage kick, or the place-kick holder, other

than when:

a. Contact is unavoidable because it is not reasonably certain that a

kick will be made.

b. The defense touches the kick near the kicker and contact is

unavoidable.

c. Contact is slight and is partially caused by movement of the

kicker.

d. Contact is caused by R being blocked into the kicker or holder by

K.

(emphasis added)

I don't see anything in the 2019 changes that apply.   It would appear that the officials missed this one.   The only possible argument that they might have is that the hit by the defender who actually ran into the punter was 'avoidable contact,' which would be a judgment call.   

 

 

 

 

From my vantage point, - A. B. and C. would have applied.   Its my understanding that NCAA rule is different but we go by NFHS rules. 

[HornetFan 86]

3 hours ago, Hwy17 said:

Too bad I don't have a video clip of this.  Here's what happened - Two defenders rushing the kick get to the punter; the first defender blocks the punt as the second defender hits the kicker after the punt is blocked.  The punter never fully extended his leg. The ball bounces off the ground and then the first defender catches it in the end-zone for what appears to be a touchdown.  The officials throw a flag for roughing the kicker.  Having seen a lot of blocked punts before, I've never seen a roughing the kicker call on a block.  

I think the call was incorrect. If the punt was blocked, it should not have been roughing the kicker. Are you sure the officials didn't call a personal foul on the 2nd rusher for hitting a defenseless player?

[Perspective 295]

Hwy17, you need to get the video clip of this play and post it. 

[Hwy17 352]

6 minutes ago, HornetFan said:

I think the call was incorrect. If the punt was blocked, it should not have been roughing the kicker. Are you sure the officials didn't call a personal foul on the 2nd rusher for hitting a defenseless player?

I can't speak as to the officials reasoning here, however as stated above ; Contact is slight and is partially caused by movement of the kicker.  

[Hwy17 352]

1 minute ago, Perspective said:

Hwy17, you need to get the video clip of this play and post it. 

Searching for it

[Hwy17 352]

So I found out what apparently happened.  Before the play, one of the officials (line judge or back judge) blew a whistle before the snap. But no flag was thrown, and neither team head the whistle, and both teams went threw with the play.  Which begs to question, how can the defense be charged with roughing the kicker when it was a dead ball no play and would have been a legal hit anyways?  

[HornetFan 86]

6 minutes ago, Hwy17 said:

So I found out what apparently happened.  Before the play, one of the officials (line judge or back judge) blew a whistle before the snap. But no flag was thrown, and neither team head the whistle, and both teams went threw with the play.  Which begs to question, how can the defense be charged with roughing the kicker when it was a dead ball no play and would have been a legal hit anyways?  

It could have been a dead ball, unnecessary roughness call, but it still sounds like the referees mishandled the call.