So that was a rule I was unaware that got changed in the off season.
My question is, what is the point of rushing the kicker if on 9 out of 10 blocks you will make some kind of contact with him that will garner a penalty?
I understand player safety is of huge concern and the game needs to change in some aspects, but we are most certainly losing something important from our game with the rules going too far the other way, we are actively discouraging players from attempting to make athletic plays as the results from the penalty will be greater than any play on the ball you can make.
This play aside we got handily beaten tonight, our boys did not show up and the Alouettes most certainly did, I’m willing to accept that, but in my opinion this is a rule change that is just going too far and is eroding what makes this game great.
I believe the answer is as follows: There is no point. Coaches should realize it very soon, if they haven’t already. But they will continue to rush the kicker because it is what they have always done.
Rules are going way too far the other way in all walks of life!
Crazy world!
I guess they are saying that if there is player contact on planted foot of kicker then the blocker was recklessly pursuing the kicker. No regard for kicker’s health/well-being. Just like when a hockey player goes flying into the boards in pursuit of opposition player and said opposition player happens to turn towards boards. The torpedo is getting a major penalty and game!!! Penalized for recklessness!
it is possible and happens quite often that punts are blocked and kickers not touched. They can all learn to do it instead of just running kamikaze out of control.
Also the point can be to rush the kicker into kicking bad one.
It would be interesting to track it over the course of a season. How many roughing penalties you get - each of which is generally equivalent to a turnover - versus the number of blocked punts that are allowed to stand.
I’m gonna say the bad ones outnumber the good ones 5-to-1.
This is still a contact sport at the end of the day- it’s quite facetious to say the players are just running kamikaze out of control. They are going from what is essentially a one on one wrestling match the second before to making their attempt to block the kick- lord forgive them if they happen to make contact with the kicker, you can still make quite the athletic play and still contact him. The league is making rules to solve a problem which never existed IMO- I’m sure there has been an injury here and there when it comes to punters but it certainly is not an epidemic. It’s getting to the point where we might as well take the contact aspect out of the sport entirely.
What about running into the running back who did not have the ball. Taking out his knees. Dirty Dirty. But a nice dance afterwards while #31 was lying on the turf. Great sportsman’s ship. No penalty though. Taunting and acting like a fool is acceptable behavior in the CFL. Just do not touch the punter or the QB. Take a RB out at the knees who does not have the ball or shoulder to helmet on a defenseless receiver. Acceptable as long as you dance and hoot and holler afterwards like it is the Fourth of July. Wait it was the Fourth of July. My bad all is good in the land of make believe.
A punter can protect himself if consideration for safety is of the utmost importance to the team. Positioning himself further back of the line of scrimmage to receive the snap will afford them a more reasonable time to complete a punt before the rushing pressure arrives. As it is now, the punters, to give their team an advantage in the punt distance, position themselves well within reach of the rushers if there is a slight breakdown in protection.
Maybe instead of making rushers/defenders the bad guys for trying their darndest to get to the ball the league impliment a rule that mandates a safer distance behind the line of scrimmage that a punter must be standing to take the snap.
I have to believe that after this stupid call against Frey that the league will review this stupid rule. Either that or officially make trying to block a punt or field goal out of the game entirely. That said, the punter/kicker should not then be allowed to join in the play after said kick/punt as the last line of defence. I know it would have hurt us as Liriam was a touchdown saver last game.
If teams are worried that their blockers can’t contain the rush to protect their kicker,
then block better, or if they are worried about their kicker getting hurt,
then have him stand 17 yards back instead of 15
I don’t think they fully thought it through. Exactly what was wrong with the block? Frey broke though, was contacted by a lineman, he reached out, got his hand on the ball while being pushed sideways by the defender, he and kicker made contact. No intent to touch the punter. Stupid stupid rule and it will change the game.
I know they are trying to protect the kicker but I don’t think the play as it happened during that game was the intent of this rule.
If it is, then we stop rushing to get to the kicker and change how we set up the return blocking schemes.
My point is if you look at how Frey rolled into Bede, regardless of whos ffault that is… If they showed that play in a boardroom everybody would have agreed it’s dangerous to the punters leg/knee and want it out.
We don’t have to like it but it’s not a “whoops” moment like the illegal contact challenge rule.
Oh, cmon, every play in football is dangerous, it is a contact sport!
Every receiver going high to catch a ball is susceptible to getting destroyed,
Every RB that goes into the line of scrimmage against guys outweighing him by 80lbs is susceptable to getting seriously injured.
Every guy receiving that unblocked punt is running full tilt into guys trying to decapitate him.
It is up to the punters team to protect the kicker, like I said block better or have the kicker stand farther back