Yeah, Real Cheap Shot America

[mikeak]

About the bolded part, where in the rule does it say at what point the ball is or is not the "Flight" that allows someone to block the kick. I would argue that "Flight" applies to the moment it is snapped, where it is in "Flight" enroute to the holder.

If on a passing play, the snapper to a QB in shotgun delays his snap, wouldn't it be legal to try to get the ball enroute and collide with anyone while attempting to do so?

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/kicksfromscrimmage

A member of the receiving team may not run into or rough a kicker who kicks from behind his line unless contact is:

(a) Incidental to and after he had touched ball in flight.

The ball has to be in flight for the "touching the ball" part to apply. So technically touching it on the ground didn't change anything. With that said Sherman is smart enough to know that if he doesn't touch the ball he is most DEFINATELY getting a call against him.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I keep seeing the claim that Carpenter grabbed the wrong knee. My first thought, after going back and watching it again, was that it was the wrong knee. But after watching it several more times I began to realize that it really is the rightful knee. He actually kicked the ball and followed through right into Sherman with the kicking leg. That's gotta hurt a boat load. Judge for yourself, but I don't think it was the wrong knee. It just looked that way because the video only shows the left leg getting hit in a manner in which we are accustomed to relating injury.

Either way, Carpenter definitely did his best soccer flop impression.

Luckily he miraculously healed that one play it took the Bills to spike the ball.

 

[White Devil]

Sorry - the rule is that you have to touch the ball WHILE IN FLIGHT

It should have been a 15 yard penalty. Doesn't mean they didn't miss other calls and it is annoying this gets so much attention, but stop trying to argue that it is not a 15 yard penalty

So what happens if it's never kicked? You're saying the holder could just sit there with his finger on the ball waiting for it to be kicked for how long?....forever?

Nobody is allowed to touch the kicker or the holder until the ball is kicked.

That's basically what you're saying.

This is a great rebuttal of my point

The point about hitting the kicker only applies after the ball is in the air (after the kicker hits it). That rule is clear and unchanged.

However from the snap you have other rules which would then apply until the ball is actually kicked.

Using your logic (which makes sense and I was not considering) the holder is basically the QB (he is in control of the football) until the ball is kicked at which point he becomes the holder.....

So the kicker is like a RB until he kicks and sure you can run into him.

The only thing that makes it different is that you have certain rules which only applies to kicking like how you line up with the Center.

There is either a hole in the rules or you apply normal snap rules until the ball is kicked

I agree with the fact that Sherman touched the ball and said that to lots of people originally. I claimed it wasn't a penalty because of that (obviously an offside penalty) but then when I saw the full rule I said ok it is a 15 yard penalty. Now it is more of a gray zone but since media is involved they are always on the quick judgment side of things without looking into nuances of the rules (we have seen it before).......

Yea the way the rule is written doesn't anticipate someone being past the line of scrimmage basically before the ball is placed to be kicked. It should be impossible. It was really weird play that I personally have never seen happen in all the time I've watched any level of football. I wasn't trying to be a smartass with my reply and I'm happy you didn't take it that way. :2thumbs:

 

[Silver Hawk]

About the bolded part, where in the rule does it say at what point the ball is or is not the "Flight" that allows someone to block the kick. I would argue that "Flight" applies to the moment it is snapped, where it is in "Flight" enroute to the holder.

If on a passing play, the snapper to a QB in shotgun delays his snap, wouldn't it be legal to try to get the ball enroute and collide with anyone while attempting to do so?

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/kicksfromscrimmage

A member of the receiving team may not run into or rough a kicker who kicks from behind his line unless contact is:

(a) Incidental to and after he had touched ball in flight.

The ball has to be in flight for the "touching the ball" part to apply. So technically touching it on the ground didn't change anything. With that said Sherman is smart enough to know that if he doesn't touch the ball he is most DEFINATELY getting a call against him.

Are you interpreting this rule to mean that a defender cannot tackle a punter if he chooses to, instead of trying to block the ball after it leaves their foot (presuming the punter isn't running)? Do you think that the defender would have to stop and wait for the punter to run or kick before he contacted him?

I do know this - the rule book is WAY too complicated. I have a printout of the 2013 version. Almost 100 pages. In smallish print, on 8/5 X 11 paper. With all sorts of ifs, ands and buts. Who can master that behemoth?

 

[Seanhawk]

Sherman fined $9K for this play.

 

[HawkGA]

Hope they televise the appeal.

 

[Seahawks4life]

[vimeo]191048910[/vimeo]


The whistle was blown after play was done.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Just another thought on the subject.

If the "in flight" stipulation in the rules is the sticking point to this not being considered a blocked kick, perhaps it should be ruled a fumble. After all, Richard and the holder both essentially had simultaneous possession of the ball on the ground. If that were the case, you couldn't call a roughing penalty, just like you wouldn't if there were a loose ball in the scrum.

My take is that it should just be considered a block because Richard obviously altered the flight of the ball by pushing down on it and changing the angle of the hold. I realize this is all moot because of the offsides penalty, but it could crop up again down the line.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Just another thought on the subject.

If the "in flight" stipulation in the rules is the sticking point to this not being considered a blocked kick, perhaps it should be ruled a fumble. After all, Richard and the holder both essentially had simultaneous possession of the ball on the ground. If that were the case, you couldn't call a roughing penalty, just like you wouldn't if there were a loose ball in the scrum.

My take is that it should just be considered a block because Richard obviously altered the flight of the ball by pushing down on it and changing the angle of the hold. I realize this is all moot because of the offsides penalty, but it could crop up again down the line.

You can't have a fumble with the offsides, that's why the refs waiting until the kick was blocked to blow the whistle. Same difference.

The fine was imposed because the league thought Sherman should have been called for roughing the kicker. Judgement call for sure, and one the refs on the field didn't think happened.

 

[253hawk]

Except the refs called the penalty unabated...which is a dead ball foul. You can't rough a kicker if no play happened, which is what goes in the books for unabated.

You can still have a fumble on an offsides play, except the ball will just go back to the offense no matter what. The league is trying to fine him for something under an offsides ruling with the pretense that an actual play occurred, but unabated nullifies that because it should have been dead to begin with.

 

[mikeak]

Are you interpreting this rule to mean that a defender cannot tackle a punter if he chooses to, instead of trying to block the ball after it leaves their foot (presuming the punter isn't running)? Do you think that the defender would have to stop and wait for the punter to run or kick before he contacted him?

I was interpreting it as such (that is how it is written) but after White Devil's point on the subject earlier I agree that there is no rule covering this under the kicking sections of the rules. So you can either argue that it isn't cover there or that normal snap rules should apply until the point where the ball is kicked.

Either way Sherman should correctly not be flagged nor be fined (which I now know he was)

 

[Siouxhawk]

Just another thought on the subject.

If the "in flight" stipulation in the rules is the sticking point to this not being considered a blocked kick, perhaps it should be ruled a fumble. After all, Richard and the holder both essentially had simultaneous possession of the ball on the ground. If that were the case, you couldn't call a roughing penalty, just like you wouldn't if there were a loose ball in the scrum.

My take is that it should just be considered a block because Richard obviously altered the flight of the ball by pushing down on it and changing the angle of the hold. I realize this is all moot because of the offsides penalty, but it could crop up again down the line.

You can't have a fumble with the offsides, that's why the refs waiting until the kick was blocked to blow the whistle. Same difference.

The fine was imposed because the league thought Sherman should have been called for roughing the kicker. Judgement call for sure, and one the refs on the field didn't think happened.

I don't think it happened either. By putting his hand on the ball, he essentially blocked the kick. Whatever happens after that is fair game. I hate how the NFL makes Sherm out to be a villain.

 

[Silver Hawk]

Are you interpreting this rule to mean that a defender cannot tackle a punter if he chooses to, instead of trying to block the ball after it leaves their foot (presuming the punter isn't running)? Do you think that the defender would have to stop and wait for the punter to run or kick before he contacted him?

I was interpreting it as such (that is how it is written) but after White Devil's point on the subject earlier I agree that there is no rule covering this under the kicking sections of the rules. So you can either argue that it isn't cover there or that normal snap rules should apply until the point where the ball is kicked.

Either way Sherman should correctly not be flagged nor be fined (which I now know he was)

It does seem to be how it is written. The whole thing is quite bizarre.

Imagine a situation where the punter receives a clean snap. However, a defender has gotten through so quick and so far that the punter just freezes. Normally, you'd expect the punter to scramble or try to kick, somehow. This time, he doesn't. Deer in the headlights. The defender then decides it's easiest to just blow up or tackle the punter. Under the rule, it would seem that would be roughing. Right?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Just another thought on the subject.

If the "in flight" stipulation in the rules is the sticking point to this not being considered a blocked kick, perhaps it should be ruled a fumble. After all, Richard and the holder both essentially had simultaneous possession of the ball on the ground. If that were the case, you couldn't call a roughing penalty, just like you wouldn't if there were a loose ball in the scrum.

My take is that it should just be considered a block because Richard obviously altered the flight of the ball by pushing down on it and changing the angle of the hold. I realize this is all moot because of the offsides penalty, but it could crop up again down the line.

You can't have a fumble with the offsides, that's why the refs waiting until the kick was blocked to blow the whistle. Same difference.

The fine was imposed because the league thought Sherman should have been called for roughing the kicker. Judgement call for sure, and one the refs on the field didn't think happened.

I don't think it happened either. By putting his hand on the ball, he essentially blocked the kick. Whatever happens after that is fair game. I hate how the NFL makes Sherm out to be a villain.

Sherm did run into him pretty damn hard, so I could see a case for unnecessary roughness. You can block a kick and still run into the kicker with bad intent and get an unnecessary roughness call. Happens all the time with sacks, you sacked or hit the QB just a LITTLE bit too hard.

It doesn't matter, just like when the league office apologized to us two weeks ago for blowing all those calls in NO, it's just a way for the league to appease the butthurt team.

 

[mikeak]

just like when the league office apologized to us two weeks ago for blowing all those calls in NO, .

Somehow completely missed that this happened

 

[Sgt. Largent]

just like when the league office apologized to us two weeks ago for blowing all those calls in NO, .

Somehow completely missed that this happened

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seah ... to-saints/

 

[byau]

Yea the way the rule is written doesn't anticipate someone being past the line of scrimmage basically before the ball is placed to be kicked. It should be impossible. It was really weird play that I personally have never seen happen in all the time I've watched any level of football. I wasn't trying to be a smartass with my reply and I'm happy you didn't take it that way. :2thumbs:

It *should* be impossible, because if it ever does happen you would also expect the refs to throw the flag and end the play. Which also didn't happen. Had they done that and Sherman continued on his way, you got your foul

Perfect storm of events really

I tried to do some googling around about roughing the kicker if the ball is not yet in flight. Found nada

And on the replay, the only reason he rolled into the kicker is because the kicker also tried to kick the ball, which I think is proof that he went for the ball, not for the kicker.

Not a malicious play, smart one

 

[Seahawkfan80]

So, The real question is this, can a defender hold the ball for the kicker so he can make a field goal? :sarcasm_off: :mrgreen: :stirthepot:

 

[mikeak]

just like when the league office apologized to us two weeks ago for blowing all those calls in NO, .

Somehow completely missed that this happened

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seah ... to-saints/

Thanks!!!

 

[Redsand187]

Can we please throw the flag when a player flops? That kicker lays the ground rolling in pain. But recovers quickly! runs back after the spiked ball and continues to kick off without a limp and is not even mentioned as an injured player after the game.

They did. He was charged with a 4th time out and was ineligible to play the next play, thus they had to spike the ball to kill a play so the kicker could be eligible again. This wasted a couple seconds, and moved them back a couple yards. They then were charged with a delay of game, which was the official's fault really, but could also be passed off on poor clock management on the bills. Ultimately, they were pushed out of range as a result of the whole fustercluck. What better outcome could a flag result in?