Brian's Twitter message about rugby style punters
"bad news for 'rugby-style' punters: only cfb rule change is you can't be called for 'roughing' um"
I actually have a pretty big problem with this because now you are trying to make the refs decide the intent of the kicker. How do you define when he's crossed the boundary from rugby style to "normal" punter.
Because then whenever Zoltan goes back to punt just bring the house and rough the shit out of him. To me this is a pretty horrible rule change.
What say you community?
Zoltan getting roughing the defender penalties.
nice play
It will be interesting how they judge intent in these instances. Just because someone uses that style on occassion doesn't mean they don't punt "normally" as well so how do you coach the kids playing against such a punter.
I guess they think because Rugby is a more dangerous sport than a person who choses to punt like them should be able to withstand the punishment........lol
As Brian mentioned in his post on this 2 months ago (http://mgoblog.com/category/tags/rule-changes):
"A new rule states that once [rugby] punters are outside the pocket, the defense will not be penalized for running into them or roughing them."
The "pocket" definition is a bit hazy, but it does not come down to deciphering intent. It is just a judgment call by the official. It is also already in use for other calls (e.g. intentional grounding).
But I'm wondering why he just posted about it on twitter.
it just became official-official. these things have like three layers to get through.
This is just an outside the tackle box rule, and one I'm fine with.
the rollout punt anyways.
Did you also hate our outstanding net punting average, huge improvement in punts fielded, and 2 successful fake punts on the rugby option?
I liked the old way.. It wasn't pretty... It was boring... It didn't get the job done.... Wait... never mind I like the new way!
they were useless. But the shanks and the walking right into a punt block (which may have been the year or two before when Carr would sporadically employ it) aren't worth the occasional gains.
Well, I certainly think it was worth it over the course of this year, and I've always seen it used successfully when WVU used it. Whenever a team would rugby punt to us I would always be pissed because we wouldn't ever get a return out of it, and we frequently had a good return threat (Breaston). I don't recall ever using the rugby punt under Lloyd--only the wide gap punt formation with the 3 personal protectors, but I thought we always did a traditional punt out of the formation.
...." I break you "......
Not that this really matters, but just to give credit where credit is due, Brian was actually retweeting a tweet from @TomVH who was retweeting @schadjoe. (don't know who schadjoe is)
Pretty irrelevant and confusing but whatever.
I think you might be kidding...but I'm going to deduce on my own that schadjoe is Joe Schad, an ESPN blogger.
"I do say sir, your skills of deduction are quite remarkable"
that makes perfect sense. Thank you sir.
Hopefully this doesn't negatively impact us.
I personally think it's a good change. I think the defense is put at a disadvantage when the punter rolls out of the "pocket" and may or may not kick it. If they commit to hitting him, he can theoretically start to kick it, get nailed and draw a penalty. If the defense backs off to avoid a penalty, the kicker might be able to run to pick up the first down. Just seems to put the defense in an unfair position.
How about this potential scenario... Third and seven on your own 45. Play breaks down and the qb scrambles out of the pocket. He knows he's about to get drilled to set up fourth and fifteen, so he just decides to boot it. Most likely the defense is not prepared to field the kick so it'll just end up getting downed somewhere. Theoretically you could get a roughing the kicker and first down.
The one thing I don't know about this whole situation is how ineligible men down field would factor into it. I would guess there wouldn't be any since the offense is assuming the qb is going to pass it.
Anyway, that was kind of rambling, but I think I like the rule change.
I see where you're coming from, but remember that if you hit him before the ball gets away, or you get any part of the ball, then there's no penalty--it's a clean block. It's not like a rugby punter can start going for the fake and when he sees the tackler have time to get off a clean punt, anticipating that he would be tackled. I just don't think there's time for that--getting a punt off requires at least a full second, maybe more. If the tackler is anywhere close he's going to get there.
on a broken pass play from his own 45? I'm thinking Tebow might be the only QB that could avoid a sideline murdering for such a decision.
And it might not be a problem, since I'm not taking the time to read the rule now, but does this mean it is impossible to get a roughing the punter penalty when he is out of the pocket? Because if so, look out.
The rule for in the pocket basically says if you don't touch the ball, and then hit the punter after he's kicked it, it's roughing or running into the kicker. I could see why they would want to get rid of this for the rugby punt because of what you guys have mentioned. However, I think a rule still needs to be in place that is enforced in a way similar to roughing the qb, where you can't hit him late. Otherwise, people are going to tee off on some punters this season.
Instead of eliminating roughing for rugby punts, defenders should just be given some more leeway.
They can still can "unnecessary roughness" or "late hit". It all basically comes down to judgement.