Illegal Participation

[BetweenTheLines]

We are having some discussion about this ruling. A free kick where R goes out of bounds and while laying across the sideline reaches into the field of play to secure a kick, let's say at his 5 yard line. Illegal Participation at the 5. What would we rule, loose ball enforcement previous spot or from the 5? Thanks as always and Happy New Year!

[GA Umpire]

We are having some discussion about this ruling. A free kick where R goes out of bounds and while laying across the sideline reaches into the field of play to secure a kick, let's say at his 5 yard line. Illegal Participation at the 5. What would we rule, loose ball enforcement previous spot or from the 5? Thanks as always and Happy New Year!

We have been instructed to call this a foul on K for a free kick oob. 
It touched an object oob before being touched by R.

[Ralph Damren]

Our proposed rule change would clairfy that. Kick in/over field of play touched by R while touching OOB = R's ball at that spot. That's been my interp since the rule change in 2001. To rule IP ,one would have to rule intent. It would then become a loose ball foul and require a re-kick from R's 45. Just give 'em the ball at their 5 and let the band play on.

[BetweenTheLines]

They play we were discussing happened in the Pittsburgh Baltimore game where the Pittsburgh receiver clearly went out of bounds (intent) then reached across the sideline to secure the kick. The announcers reported "what a heads-up play" it was. When these kids see this on TV they think that is what they should be doing, obviously not true in high school. I agree with you Ralph that this should be ruled as an Illegal Participation foul during a loose ball play (the kick) with enforcement from the previous spot or decline. It seems that not all states feel the same way. Maybe there should be something codified in the casebook concerning this.

[Ralph Damren]

They play we were discussing happened in the Pittsburgh Baltimore game where the Pittsburgh receiver clearly went out of bounds (intent) then reached across the sideline to secure the kick. The announcers reported "what a heads-up play" it was. When these kids see this on TV they think that is what they should be doing, obviously not true in high school. I agree with you Ralph that this should be ruled as an Illegal Participation foul during a loose ball play (the kick) with enforcement from the previous spot or decline. It seems that not all states feel the same way. Maybe there should be something codified in the casebook concerning this.

I would lean away from IP on this play for two reasons:
(1) This would require a re-kick, the highest play on the injury chart.
(2) For R to be guilty of IP, you would have to rule intent.
IMHO, just give R the ball on their 5 as they caused the kick to be OOB, not K. If my proposal passes, I'll supply both case and S & I support that was published for several years after the 2001 rule change.

[AlUpstateNY]

I would lean away from IP on this play for two reasons:
(1) This would require a re-kick, the highest play on the injury chart.
(2) For R to be guilty of IP, you would have to rule intent.
IMHO, just give R the ball on their 5 as they caused the kick to be OOB, not K. If my proposal passes, I'll supply both case and S & I support that was published for several years after the 2001 rule change.

Strange, how most simple suggestions of clarifications/modifications for isolated instances, wind up requiring multiple paragraphs of explanation, and/or new options. 

[bama_stripes]

IMHO, just give R the ball on their 5 as they caused the kick to be OOB, not K.

That works well for most free kicks.  But what about an onside kick?  Do you want to reward R by giving them the ball at the 50 when K has a chance to recover?

[bossman72]

15 yards is too punitive for this action.

[Fatso]

We are having some discussion about this ruling. A free kick where R goes out of bounds and while laying across the sideline reaches into the field of play to secure a kick, let's say at his 5 yard line. Illegal Participation at the 5. What would we rule, loose ball enforcement previous spot or from the 5? Thanks as always and Happy New Year!

There's no foul for leaving the field of play.  If he never reestablishes himself inbounds, then it can't be IP. (unless I'm mistaken).

[NVFOA_Ump]

There's no foul for leaving the field of play.  If he never reestablishes himself inbounds, then it can't be IP. (unless I'm mistaken).

I would agree here.  What rule(s) and/or case play(s) can be referenced to support an IP call here if the player in question has not reentered the field of play?

[AlUpstateNY]

I would agree here.  What rule(s) and/or case play(s) can be referenced to support an IP call here if the player in question has not reentered the field of play?

Are you suggesting, that A could assign a "player", or non-player to shadow a kick downfield, so that if the kick crossed the sideline, before intended, they could "nudge" it back into the field of play?

[dammitbobby]

Of course he's not.  Not sure about NFHS (but I'd bet the definition is similar) but in NCAA rules a player is defined as any one of the participants in the game who is not a substitute or a replaced player and is subject to the rules when inbounds or out of bounds.

Squad members cannot in any case under any circumstances interfere with game play.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Are you suggesting, that A could assign a "player", or non-player to shadow a kick downfield, so that if the kick crossed the sideline, before intended, they could "nudge" it back into the field of play?

That's not what we are discussing here and not sure where that is coming from?

[MBK]

There's no foul for leaving the field of play.  If he never reestablishes himself inbounds, then it can't be IP. (unless I'm mistaken).

What about 9-6-2? No player shall intentionally go out of bounds during the down and ... influence the play. Penalty: illegal participation

[CalhounLJ]

I would agree here.  What rule(s) and/or case play(s) can be referenced to support an IP call here if the player in question has not reentered the field of play?

9-6-2

[NVFOA_Ump]

9-6-2

But as Ralph mentioned earlier this requires that we make a judgement call that the player in question INTENTIONALLY has gone OB.  IMHO in 99% of the cases that's simply not happening.

[CalhounLJ]

But as Ralph mentioned earlier this requires that we make a judgement call that the player in question INTENTIONALLY has gone OB.  IMHO in 99% of the cases that's simply not happening.

We've also discussed how "intentional" doesn't mean what it normally means in this context. Intentional in this case means "as opposed to being forced out." A much better term (actually used in the case book) is VOLUNTARY. By voluntary, it is meant that the player was not forced out, but went out under his own power, either on purpose, or accidentally. In either case, if he influences the play, he is guilty of IP. Take a look at case play 9.6.2 Situation A.

To follow up, if that player had been forced out and touched the pass, it would have only been an incomplete pass.
It's not so much intent, as it is objective fact. The only question to answer is whether A was forced out. 

[NVFOA_Ump]

We've also discussed how "intentional" doesn't mean what it normally means in this context. Intentional in this case means "as opposed to being forced out." A much better term (actually used in the case book) is VOLUNTARY. By voluntary, it is meant that the player was not forced out, but went out under his own power, either on purpose, or accidentally. In either case, if he influences the play, he is guilty of IP. Take a look at case play 9.6.2 Situation A.

To follow up, if that player had been forced out and touched the pass, it would have only been an incomplete pass.
It's not so much intent, as it is objective fact. The only question to answer is whether A was forced out.

IMHO very slippery slope here.  B-25 is rushing to beat A-30 to a loose free kick near the side line and as he approaches the sideline, slips and is just OB as he reaches out and drags the ball with him OB.  That's by your definition "intentional".  I'll stick to the standard dictionary definition of intentional for my calls on this type of play thanks.

[BetweenTheLines]

I started this thread and everyone gets knotted up with judging intent. Just watch this youtube vid (https:/ www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6_r46ekgKU) at the 1:10 mark and make a call. Like I said the SC interpreter says R's ball with an IP foul penalized half the distance from the 5. Ralph and I said either decline or take the IP from the previous spot. Demetriou of Reddings fame says Free Kick OB foul and IP double foul rekick. Can we agree on one of these enforcements?

[bama_stripes]

The video shows an obvious case of IP.  The kick was never going OOB on its own, and K doesn’t deserve to be penalized for doing nothing wrong.  R’s ball at the 2.5.

(edited to correct typo)

[NVFOA_Ump]

I started this thread and everyone gets knotted up with judging intent. Just watch this youtube vid (https:/ www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6_r46ekgKU) at the 1:10 mark and make a call. Like I said the SC interpreter says R's ball with an IP foul penalized half the distance from the 5. Ralph and I said either decline or take the IP from the previous spot. Demetriou of Reddings fame says Free Kick OB foul and IP double foul rekick. Can we agree on one of these enforcements?

I've got no problem with the IP call for this play since clearly the player INTENTIONALLY went OB before touching the ball in the field of play.  I don't like the idea of stretching the wording to be interpreted to say that any time a player goes OB without contact from an opponent that he has therefore intentionally gone OB. 

[dammitbobby]

The video shows an obvious case of IP.  The kick was never going OOB on its own, and K doesn’t deserve to be penalized for doing nothing wrong.  K’s ball at the 2.5.

I agree with this. The kick died in the FOP and K shouldn't be penalized for that.

[ncwingman]

The video shows an obvious case of IP.  The kick was never going OOB on its own, and K doesn’t deserve to be penalized for doing nothing wrong.  K’s ball at the 2.5.

 

Obvious typo aside...

I agree that the result of the play should either be "R's ball at the OOB spot" or "R's ball, enforce IP from the OOB spot", however is there rule justification for enforcing the IP foul from anywhere other than the previous spot and rekick?

[dammitbobby]

I think you could make the argument when it's an overtly egregious action - such as going out and laying on the ground and then reaching in to have the ball declared OOB -an action intended to be unfairly punitive to K when otherwise there would be no foul, you could possibly have unfair acts rule coverage.

[Ralph Damren]

IMHO, K could decline R's IP foul and by MAINE'S interp , award the ball to R at their 5.