Maybe I'm Biased, But I Think Running Into The Kicker Was The Right Call

[Perpetual_Beast_Mode]

Yeah, the letter of the rule is that it's supposed to be roughing the kicker if you hit the plant leg of the punter. But despite that, the spirit of the rule is that mild contact should be running into the kicker, and that was mild contact, IMO.

In any case, great to be NFC Champions

 

[blstoker]

Yeah, the letter of the rule is that it's supposed to be roughing the kicker if you hit the plant leg of the punter. But despite that, the spirit of the rule is that mild contact should be running into the kicker, and that was mild contact, IMO.

In any case, great to be NFC Champions

Not sure I agree, but it doesn't matter, those who interpret the rules for a living do. Even Peirera's opinion means nothing, as he hasn't been a ref in years. That's why he's called the former head of officiating.

 

[Destroydacre]

I don't. The rule is pretty specific if you hit the plant leg it's supposed to be roughing. Maragos wasn't trying to injure obviously, he was just going for the block, but IMO that was the wrong call.

 

[gohusk]

It could have gone either way but there was a BS hold on us that killed a drive and it's an absolute joke calling Sherman for holding given how physical the 49ers receivers are. You could nit-pick but it all evens out. The bottom line is that when Kaep needed to throw the ball he couldn't. He played like crap once again in Seattle. Maybe he should worry about learning the position instead of doing soft-**** pictures for ESPN and lame commercials for overpriced headphones.

 

[Perpetual_Beast_Mode]

What's the rule exactly? If you even touch the punter's plant leg, it's supposed to be roughing the kicker?

 

[gohusk]

Bad calls that went our way: Running into the kicker could have been running into the kicker
Personal foul on the hit was a bad call
Down by contact when it was a fumble (besides the injury, actually worked out better for the 49ers because they got it on the 15 instead of the 1)

Against: Ridiculous hold on Sherman that extended the drive that ended up a TD for the 49ers
Ridiculous offensive holding call that wiped out a big play for us.

It was basically a wash. Bad calls are going to happen and there actually weren't that many of them anyway. We won because we beat them into submission.

 

[jakedog56]

I don't. The rule is pretty specific if you hit the plant leg it's supposed to be roughing. Maragos wasn't trying to injure obviously, he was just going for the block, but IMO that was the wrong call.

Actually someone posted the rule on the general board earlier and nowhere does it state anything about running into the plant foot being automatic roughing. In fact the rule didn't state anything about feet or legs being specific to the penalty. It appeared to me it is essentially a judgment call by the ump.

If that is correct then the announcers were dead wrong.

 

[Screamin12th]

well there is also a rule about deliberately kicking a loose/fumbled ball ( Kaepernick after his fumble ) Kaepernick kicked it away from the Seahawks players and his center picked it up. The 49ers scored a TD on that drive.

The Holding on Sherman, Nice of them to totally miss the massive pushoff by Crabtree that MADE Sherman grab him.

The game had some questionable calls but in the end they evened out. Like the fumble recovery at the 1. San Fran ended up getting the ball instead on the 15.

 

[BoBlake]

Besides the two you posted

- Ridiculous hold on Sherman that extended the drive that ended up a TD for the 49ers
- Ridiculous offensive holding call that wiped out a big play for us.
- Kicking the football
- Clotheslining Jeremy Lane on the sideline when the punt that was fumbled, effectively taking away his ability to recover the fumble

Its the last 2 that I think were most critical for us since they were possible turnover balls.

But WHO CARES BOYS....WE'VE GOT A GAME TO PLAY!!!

 

[dredinis21]

I by no means am bitching by saying this, merely pointing out the answer to the question. Yes, it should have been roughing the kicker as the rule states (paraphrasing) about hitting the plant leg adding to the potential injury risk. Considering Lee came up hobbled enough to where we actually had to decline the penalty because he sprained his ankle on the play, it should have been 15 yards and the 1st down.

 

[dredinis21]

Besides the two you posted

- Ridiculous hold on Sherman that extended the drive that ended up a TD for the 49ers
- Ridiculous offensive holding call that wiped out a big play for us.
- Kicking the football
- Clotheslining Jeremy Lane on the sideline when the punt that was fumbled, effectively taking away his ability to recover the fumble

Its the last 2 that I think were most critical for us since they were possible turnover balls.

But WHO CARES BOYS....WE'VE GOT A GAME TO PLAY!!!

Before I go off, I have to say that whoever it was that got at Lane is a douche and that was a douchey move. With that said, Lane was a gunner getting owned by two Niner defenders. He wasn't getting anywhere near the fumble so please stop referring to him as if he was going to be a key player on that play, "clothesline" or not.

 

[dredinis21]

RUNNING, ROUGHING KICKER
Penalty: For running into the kicker: Loss of five yards from the previous spot, no automatic first
down. (This is not a personal foul). For roughing the kicker or holder, loss of 15 yards from the
previous spot. (This is a personal foul, and also disqualification if flagrant).
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES
(1) Avoiding the kicker is a primary responsibility of defensive players if they do not touch the kick.
(2) Any contact with the kicker by a single defensive player who has not touched the kick is running into
the kicker.
(3) Any unnecessary roughness committed by defensive players is roughing the kicker. Severity of
contact and potential for injury are to be considered.

 

[octagondd]

I by no means am bitching by saying this, merely pointing out the answer to the question. Yes, it should have been roughing the kicker as the rule states (paraphrasing) about hitting the plant leg adding to the potential injury risk. Considering Lee came up hobbled enough to where we actually had to decline the penalty because he sprained his ankle on the play, it should have been 15 yards and the 1st down.

I am having a hard time finding the rule about hitting the plant leg. All I find is running into and roughing the kicker and judgement of the official.

(1) Avoiding the kicker is a primary responsibility of defensive players if they do not touch the kick.
(2) Any contact with the kicker by a single defensive player who has not touched the kick is running into
the kicker.
(3) Any unnecessary roughness committed by defensive players is roughing the kicker. Severity of
contact and potential for injury are to be considered.

Maybe the ref did not see his ankle roll? Doubt that is a reviewable call.

 

[dredinis21]

I am having a hard time finding the rule about hitting the plant leg. All I find is running into and roughing the kicker and judgement of the official.

(1) Avoiding the kicker is a primary responsibility of defensive players if they do not touch the kick.
(2) Any contact with the kicker by a single defensive player who has not touched the kick is running into
the kicker.
(3) Any unnecessary roughness committed by defensive players is roughing the kicker. Severity of
contact and potential for injury are to be considered.

Maybe the ref did not see his ankle roll? Doubt that is a reviewable call.

You are correct, which is why I went ahead after paraphrasing to find the actual rules. Severity of contact and potential for injury is what I was looking at. I don't think the SEA player was intending to hurt Lee, but the effect of the play was that Lee ended up rolling his ankle in the process based on the contact made by the SEA player. That would be a 15 yard penalty and a 1st down as opposed to a 5 yard penalty and still 4th and 3 as it was.

 

[Podunkparte]

Before I go off, I have to say that whoever it was that got at Lane is a douche and that was a douchey move. With that said, Lane was a gunner getting owned by two Niner defenders. He wasn't getting anywhere near the fumble so please stop referring to him as if he was going to be a key player on that play, "clothesline" or not.

Well then you clearly didn't watch Jeremy Lane all year on punt coverage because he absolutely could have been involved in that play if he didn't get a cheap shoulder to the chest by some loser nobody on the sideline.

 

[dude82]

Lane was our special teams ace on kick coverage. He had the most special teams tackles on the team in the regular season and the 10th most in the league. If anyone could have gotten there to make a play on the ball, it would have been Lane. Maybe he comes up with it and maybe he doesn't, but we'll never know because he wasn't given the opportunity to find out.

 

[dredinis21]

Well then you clearly didn't watch Jeremy Lane all year on punt coverage because he absolutely could have been involved in that play if he didn't get a cheap shoulder to the chest by some loser nobody on the sideline.

Calm yer tits, I was referring to the ACTUAL play, not a lifetime achievement award. On that play, the gunner Lane had two different guys on him, riding him the whole way. The chance of Lane making a play on the fumble on THAT PARTICULAR PLAY GIVEN THE RETURN COVERAGE DESIGN were slim to none.

 

[Destroydacre]

Actually someone posted the rule on the general board earlier and nowhere does it state anything about running into the plant foot being automatic roughing. In fact the rule didn't state anything about feet or legs being specific to the penalty. It appeared to me it is essentially a judgment call by the ump.

If that is correct then the announcers were dead wrong.

I've seen several people bring up the plant leg vs kicking leg thing on TV over the last couple weeks so I just assumed that the people who brought it up knew what they were talking about. Guess I should know better.

I will say when I saw the play live it looked like a running into the kicker penalty, when I saw the replay it looked like roughing.

 

[Podunkparte]

Calm yer tits, I was referring to the ACTUAL play, not a lifetime achievement award. On that play, the gunner Lane had two different guys on him, riding him the whole way. The chance of Lane making a play on the fumble on THAT PARTICULAR PLAY GIVEN THE RETURN COVERAGE DESIGN were slim to none.

Yeah because some jackass in street clothes laid him out like a punk!

The point is without that happening Lane has a great chance of being involved in the play because he's been doing it all year long.

 

[France_Steve]

After reading the rules posted I have to say it was not a bad call. It was a push and could have gone either way. It seems to be a complete judgment call. The contact was minimal, but the minimal contact was enough to injure his ankle because of the way he landed and the location of contact. If they had called roughing nobody would have argued.