Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Interesting "unsporting" play in the Bengals-Vikings game. Vikings punt, Bengals returner signals for a fair catch, and as the returner runs up to catch the ball a Vikings play grabs a Bengals blocker and creates a huge collision with the returner before he can field the punt. The refs pick up the flag and say over the microphone "no flag because the defender was blocked into the returner". Aside from a description that is almost comical as to what actually happened, Gene Steratore comes on the air and immediately says the refs were correct in picking up the flag and also agrees that the Vikings player was blocked into the returner. When the announcers question Steratore's sanity, he admits "well, maybe he wasn't blocked into the returner, but the returner collided with his own man so no flag."

Is that right? Isn't there like a halo around the returner when he signals fair catch and he has to be given the opportunity to catch the ball? If the Viking player trucks the Bengal blocker into the returner, and at some point in time the Viking player also steps in the halo area, isn't that impeding the returner's ability to return the punt?

Also, isn't there some common sense that says you can't fling blockers into the return man during a fair catch?

That's a really good question - because when a defender is engaged in a block, often there's not much he can do. Now, if he actually pushes the blocker into the return man - is that considered shedding the block? Is it considered interference? It can be viewed as both.

This is a super interesting question so I looked it up in the rule book. Not sure if this link will take you directly to the actual spot in the book, so I'll cut and paste the language. https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nf ... tch-a-kick


"ARTICLE 1. INTERFERENCE
During a scrimmage kick that crosses the line of scrimmage, or during a free kick, members of the kicking team are prohibited from interfering with any receiver making an attempt to catch the airborne kick, or from obstructing or hindering his path to the airborne kick, and regardless of whether any signal was given.

Item 1. Contact with Receiver. It is interference if a player of the kicking team contacts the receiver, or causes a passive player of either team to contact the receiver, before or simultaneous to the receiver touching the ball.

Item 2. Right of Way. A receiver who is moving toward a kicked ball that is in flight has the right of way. If opponents obstruct his path to the ball, or cause a passive player of either team to obstruct his path, it is interference, even if there is no contact, or if he catches the ball in spite of the interference, and regardless of whether any signal was given.

Note: It is not a foul if a kicking team player is blocked into the receiver, or the contact is the result of a foul."

Later, in Article 3 of the rule it says under the headline RESTRICTIONS "If a receiver has made a fair catch, an opponent is prohibited from blocking or tackling him, or causing a passive player of either team to contact him. Incidental contact is not a foul."


It says PASSIVE player. Does that include a blocker? I don't know if that's defined in the book. Does anyone else know?

IMHO, I agree with you - that seems like it should be a penalty if the Vikings player initiated the contact with the Bengal player to knock him into the returner - because it seems that would fall into the definition of "causing a passive player to contact him." Certainly not an obvious no-call. How long did the officials discuss it? That's kind of a tough call.

GameBeforeTheMoney wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2023 8:20 pm Item 2. Right of Way. A receiver who is moving toward a kicked ball that is in flight has the right of way. If opponents obstruct his path to the ball, or cause a passive player of either team to obstruct his path, it is interference, even if there is no contact, or if he catches the ball in spite of the interference, and regardless of whether any signal was given.

Thanks. I think this speaks directly to the play in question,IMO. You can't fling a blocker into a returner and impede the ability to catch the punt. For as much of an idiot Gene Steratore is, even I am amazed that Steratore had no idea what the actual rule was for this....because it is actually logical. Not sure what the refs were thinking, not sure what Steratore was thinking, but it makes perfect sense with what I have watched from the NFL this year. I've watched Bills-Chiefs, Packers-Giants, & then Vikings-Bengals the past two weeks, and there were like 10 separate instances when what I saw happen on the field went directly against some official's "ruling". The end of the Packers-Giants game was particularly galling....Packers player catches ball in endzone, takes two steps....incomplete! Next play, Packers player catches ball on goal line and has no part of his body touching in the end zone...touchdown!

I think the best summation of the NFL is the Vikings-Bengals game where the Bengals had a game-clinching pick six overturned by a questionable offsides call on Tyler Hendrickson. It looked like Hendrickson lifts his hand when the Vikings center begins to snap the ball. Exciting play goes for naught. But the worst part is 1) since the game is on NFL Network, the replay angle is from a camera placed in the upper deck of the end zone corner so you are looking at the play diagonally from above, and 2) Steratore sees the replay and somehow concludes "good call. Hendrickson was clearly offside."

The NFL really needs to revamp how it officiates its games. Its highly unentertaining.