|
Replies: 21
| visibility 2356
|
Rival Killer [2997]
TigerPulse: 95%
33
|
Interfering with kick returner
2
Oct 12, 2025, 7:55 PM
|
|
Yesterday a BC player intentionally cleary pushed Strozier into Wesco. Pushed disclosure and Wesco out-of-the-way so the ball hit the ground.
My question for the experts of TNet is …… are players in the kicking team allowed to intentionally block players from the receiving team into the kick returner?
Separately from that, are they allowed to unintentionally block players into the kick returner?
|
|
|
|
 |
Heisman Winner [87642]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 45518
Joined: 2004
|
Re: Interfering with kick returner
Oct 12, 2025, 8:28 PM
|
|
Yes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [284]
TigerPulse: 100%
14
|
Re: Interfering with kick returner
2
Oct 12, 2025, 8:33 PM
|
|
I don’t think the kicking team is allowed to interfere with a fair catch “in ANY way”. I would think blocking into the receiver would constitute a way to interfere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Legend [12662]
TigerPulse: 100%
47
Posts: 12700
Joined: 2003
|
i understaned you to be correct on that and the refs blew that call***
1
Oct 12, 2025, 8:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [713]
TigerPulse: 74%
22
|
Re: i understaned you to be correct on that and the refs blew that call***
Oct 12, 2025, 8:56 PM
|
|
The Clemson radio commentators thought the officials made the determination that a Clemson player (Ronan?) blocked a BC player into Westco.
It seems to me that every change of possession is reviewed, so it was odd that a review was not done on that punt and fumble.
The Clemson radio commentators also thought, as they stated about 5 or 6 times, that the officials were spotting the ball in BC's favor, taking a yard, or so, from Cllemson, several times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5940]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
Re: i understaned you to be correct on that and the refs blew that call***
Oct 13, 2025, 8:12 AM
|
|
Watching at home, I noticed about 5 or 6 *really* bad spots, including the one at the end of the first half that was eventually overturned on review. But, IIRC, none of them ultimately impacted our drives...at least one did make us go for a 4th down conversion that we made and ultimately got a TD on the drive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [5043]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8323]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
|
Re: Interfering with kick returner
1
Oct 12, 2025, 8:48 PM
|
|
The situation in this case is the ball bounced up and hit one of our players. Number 24, which made it live.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Spirit [9377]
TigerPulse: 100%
44
|
The ball bounced up and hit a player bc our punt returner was taken out
Oct 12, 2025, 8:59 PM
|
|
I thought blocking a player into the returner was the same as interfering with the returner. If our blocker unintentionally ran into our returner by not paying attention then there is no foul. But he was clearly pushed into him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [257]
TigerPulse: 100%
14
|
Re: The ball bounced up and hit a player bc our punt returner was taken out
2
Oct 12, 2025, 9:58 PM
|
|
I thought blocking a player into the returner was the same as interfering with the returner. If our blocker unintentionally ran into our returner by not paying attention then there is no foul. But he was clearly pushed into him.
It is. The BC (kicking team) blocked a Clemson player (return team) into the kicker receiver. Fair catch in this case is immaterial, bc that by rule is interference. Should have been a flag and let the play run out w BC recovery. However, due to.the flag, should have been Clemsons ball.
Had Clemson blocked someone into their own kick receiver, that would not be interference.
Also, if the contact that pushed.the clemson player into the punt receiver was deemed incidental, it might not be flagged.
I suppose the refs could argue.that it was clemson that initiated contact or that the contact was incidental....but I dont see how in this case.
Its been a while, but i believe the rule is 6-4-1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [713]
TigerPulse: 74%
22
|
Re: Interfering with kick returner
1
Oct 12, 2025, 9:00 PM
[ in reply to Re: Interfering with kick returner ] |
|
Westco fumbled the catch because a BC player bumped into Westco, IMO.
(Please see my previous comments in this thread.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2997]
TigerPulse: 95%
33
|
Re: Interfering with kick returner
2
Oct 12, 2025, 9:10 PM
|
|
Wesco did not fumble the catch. He was 2 yards away when the ball hit the ground.
BC player clearly pushed Strozier into Wesco, thus pushing Wesco, Strozier and the BC player out-of-the-way of the punt that hit the ground.
Strozier gotta be stronger and not be pushed around, but if it’s legal to push a receiving player into the kick returner, let’s go, I’d do it on every punt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [36568]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 15232
Joined: 1998
|
Re: Interfering with kick returner
Oct 12, 2025, 9:57 PM
|
|
we'll have a new S&C coach next year. I agree, we seem to get pushed around in many positions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5940]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2997]
TigerPulse: 95%
33
|
Re: Interfering with kick returner
3
Oct 12, 2025, 9:14 PM
|
|
AI says ……..
“Kick-catch interference: The rules protect a returner's opportunity to catch a kick, and the kicking team cannot interfere with that opportunity. This includes a player being intentionally pushed or blocked into the returner.”
so the refs blatantly blew this. The BC player clearly pushed strozier straight into Wesco; rode him hard for more than 5 yards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7361]
TigerPulse: 96%
42
Posts: 13893
Joined: 2015
|
Re: Interfering with kick returner
1
Oct 12, 2025, 9:17 PM
|
|
Yes it was obvious interference. That could have been a big momentum swing if they scored a TD there. That was a bs no call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4192]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [257]
TigerPulse: 100%
14
|
Re: Interfering with kick returner
Oct 12, 2025, 10:00 PM
[ in reply to Re: Interfering with kick returner ] |
|
AI says ……..
“Kick-catch interference: The rules protect a returner's opportunity to catch a kick, and the kicking team cannot interfere with that opportunity. This includes a player being intentionally pushed or blocked into the returner.”
so the refs blatantly blew this. The BC player clearly pushed strozier straight into Wesco; rode him hard for more than 5 yards.
This.
As I said previously, its been a while, but I am pretty sure this is the rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Spirit [9816]
TigerPulse: 100%
44
|
Re: Interfering with kick returner
Oct 12, 2025, 9:40 PM
|
|
Yes
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [4081]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: Interfering with kick returner
1
Oct 12, 2025, 10:03 PM
|
|
If the action is intentional, there should be a penalty; if unintentional, there should not be. It seemed very intentional, but assessing intent is a big ask for refs who struggle to spot the ball accurately within four yards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [256]
TigerPulse: 100%
14
|
Re: Interfering with kick returner
1
Oct 13, 2025, 3:33 AM
|
|
Seems like it's allowed according to the rule book. This is one of their examples in the interference with the opportunity to catch a kick section --
"Punt receiver B22 is at the B-30 awaiting the punt as it makes its
downward flight and his teammate B88 is three yards in front of him
at the B-33. Down field to cover the kick, A44 legally blocks B88 into
B22 just as the ball reaches him. The ball hits B22 in the shoulder and
bounces away. Team A recovers at the B-25.
RULING: Team A’s ball, first and 10 at the B-25. This is not kick-catch interference. The action
by A44 is against B88 who is not in position to catch the kick, and not
against B22. Thus A44 is not deemed to have interfered with B22’s
opportunity to catch the ball. B22’s touching of the ball allows Team A
to recover legally"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [5043]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: Interfering with kick returner
Oct 13, 2025, 11:12 AM
|
|
That was my question.
Sounds like it's legal which is fine.
F'ing incompetent announcers should have at least discussed it and asked the ref on call about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 21
| visibility 2356
|
|
|
50
