Talk:Roughing the kicker

	American football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject American football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of American football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.American footballWikipedia:WikiProject American footballTemplate:WikiProject American footballAmerican football articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Canadian football

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canadian football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canadian football and the Canadian Football League on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Canadian footballWikipedia:WikiProject Canadian footballTemplate:WikiProject Canadian footballCanadian football articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Merge Roughing the kicker and Roughing the passer edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Those two stubs describe very similar concept. I think it is best to merge them. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

If anything, it should be the other way around. I'm pretty sure that roughing the passer is also likely stand-along notable, as it got a lot of coverage a couple years ago when the NFL became a lot stricter with the penalty. Not sure about the kicker one without a search, but roughing the passer is by far the more significant of the two. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Closing, given that there is no support for the proposal as expressed, and no support for the alternative proposal with a stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Clarify that contact is legal if after a successful block edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The first paragraph of the article indicates that contact is allowed after a successful block. But, the second paragraph seems to contradict that by stating that certain contact is a foul (without qualification). Could we add a qualification about this after the first sentence of the second paragraph? Maybe "...on the ground. It is not a foul if contact is after a successful block. It is not a foul if..." Jrennie (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add topic