RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: refjeff on August 08, 2017, 09:18:07 AM
-
K's kickoff rolls to the 4 yard line and very near the sideline. R1 hustles to retrieve the kick and (a) R1's momentum is such that he inadvertently steps on the sideline before he picks up the ball and turns to run upfield or (b) seeing where he's at, R1 deliberately steps out of bounds before he picks up the ball. What's the status of the ball? What fouls do we have? Where is the ball next put into play?
Needed to be more specific, (a) foot on the line when he picks up the ball and (b) still OOB when he picks up the ball.
-
K's kickoff rolls to the 4 yard line and very near the sideline. R1 hustles to retrieve the kick and (a) R1's momentum is such that he inadvertently steps on the sideline before he picks up the ball and turns to run upfield or (b) seeing where he's at, R1 deliberately steps out of bounds before he picks up the ball. What's the status of the ball? What fouls do we have? Where is the ball next put into play?
(a) - If R1 is still touching the sideline when he picks up the ball, the ball becomes dead when touched. 1st & 10 for R at R's 4 yard line. If R1 has returned to an inbounds position, ball remains live and will be put in play at the spot where R1's run ends (assuming that he retains possession).
(b) - If R1 is still out of bounds when he picks up ball, no problem and same as in (a). If R1 has returned to an inbounds position before he picks up ball, R1 is guilty of IP, but ball remains live and the spot where it will be put in play will be determined by ensuing action and whether K accepts or declines penalty for IP.
-
(a) - If R1 is still touching the sideline when he picks up the ball, the ball becomes dead when touched. 1st & 10 for R at R's 4 yard line. If R1 has returned to an inbounds position, ball remains live and will be put in play at the spot where R1's run ends (assuming that he retains possession).
(b) - If R1 is still out of bounds when he picks up ball, no problem and same as in (a). If R1 has returned to an inbounds position before he picks up ball, R1 is guilty of IP, but ball remains live and the spot where it will be put in play will be determined by ensuing action and whether K accepts or declines penalty for IP.
I disagree with half of (b). If R1 deliberately steps out of bounds and then intentionally touches the ball, he is guilty of illegal participation. He does not need to return to an in-bounds position prior to touching the ball to commit IP. The subsections of 9-6-2 are clarified with an "or" not an "and".
-
I disagree with half of (b). If R1 deliberately steps out of bounds and then intentionally touches the ball, he is guilty of illegal participation. He does not need to return to an in-bounds position prior to touching the ball to commit IP. The subsections of 9-6-2 are clarified with an "or" not an "and".
I think you are correct!
-
Also consider R straddling the sidelines and catching an airborne free kick. Once touched, the kick is OOB, BUT if the kick hasn't broken the sideline plane, it isn't a foul by K, just R's ball where touched. The reinstated 4-3-1 PlayPic A on page 122 of S & I gives support to that.
An easy call, as we have two officials on each sideline for a free kick. They'll be able to get a good view of the sideline plane.
PS : Prab is correct in thinking that NCwingman is correct aWaRd aWaRd
-
To address the enforcement portion/where is the ball next put in play -- if R deliberately goes out of bounds prior to touching/gaining possession of the free kick (whether he's still OOB or not), this is a foul by R on a loose ball play. The IP penalty (if accepted) is from the previous spot and we rekick. Alternatively, K can decline the foul and (a) if R had returned to the field, take the results of the ensuing run or (b) if R was still OOB, it is R's ball at the OOB spot.
-
Also consider R straddling the sidelines and catching an airborne free kick. Once touched, the kick is OOB, BUT if the kick hasn't broken the sideline plane, it isn't a foul by K, just R's ball where touched. The reinstated 4-3-1 PlayPic A on page 122 of S & I gives support to that.
I'm confused. PlayPic A on p122 doesn't help me. It describes a "receiver (who) possesses the free kick before he touched out of bounds," not straddling the sideline.
If the kick is OOB as soon as it's touched, then R never touched it inbounds and K kicked the ball OOB.
No?
-
Also consider R straddling the sidelines and catching an airborne free kick. Once touched, the kick is OOB, BUT if the kick hasn't broken the sideline plane, it isn't a foul by K, just R's ball where touched. The reinstated 4-3-1 PlayPic A on page 122 of S & I gives support to that.
An easy call, as we have two officials on each sideline for a free kick. They'll be able to get a good view of the sideline plane.
PS : Prab is correct in thinking that NCwingman is correct aWaRd aWaRd
Ralph, we no longer get the S & I books here in Georgia but your ruling seems to conflict with Reddings.
Reddings Example 6-12: "R24 is standing with one foot out of bounds when he receives Team K's free kick before or after it touches the ground inbounds. When R24 touches the ball it is (a) beyond the sideline plane, or (b) over the field of play. RULING: In (a) and (b), it is a foul by Team K for a free kick out of bounds. The ball is out of bounds because it touches a player who is out of bounds (6.1.9C)
Discuss
-
See also casebook 6.1.9 Situation C:
"R1 is running near a sideline as he attempts to catch a free kick in flight. R1 has ... one foot on the sideline when he reaches through the plane of the sideline. The ball bouncess off his hands and lands out of bounds. RULING: ... Since R1 is out of bounds when the ball is touched, the kicker has caused the ball to be out of bounds."
-
See also casebook 6.1.9 Situation C:
"R1 is running near a sideline as he attempts to catch a free kick in flight. R1 has ... one foot on the sideline when he reaches through the plane of the sideline. The ball bouncess off his hands and lands out of bounds. RULING: ... Since R1 is out of bounds when the ball is touched, the kicker has caused the ball to be out of bounds."
This has always been my understanding of the play. The kick is the force that put the ball out of bounds.
-
I agree with the KOB scenarios. K is responsible and has fouled.
-
Attached picture is from 2005 Simplified & Illustrated. When comparing it with CB 6.1.9C, it appears that the NFHS uses a similar philosophy to that of a fly ball in baseball. "Where was the ball when it was touched."
In the Play Pic, the receiver has one foot OB and he contacts the ball above the field of play. Since the ball did not go OB untouched by R, it will be R's ball at the 14 yard line (4-3-1).
In CB 6.1.9C, the receiver with one foot on the sideline "reaches through the plane of the sideline" and contacts the ball that is above the OB area. Since the ball was beyond the sideline plane and above the OB area when touched by R, the ball has gone OB untouched by R and the kick is OB.
-
Attached picture is from 2005 Simplified & Illustrated. When comparing it with CB 6.1.9C, it appears that the NFHS uses a similar philosophy to that of a fly ball in baseball. "Where was the ball when it was touched."
In the Play Pic, the receiver has one foot OB and he contacts the ball above the field of play. Since the ball did not go OB untouched by R, it will be R's ball at the 14 yard line (4-3-1).
In CB 6.1.9C, the receiver with one foot on the sideline "reaches through the plane of the sideline" and contacts the ball that is above the OB area. Since the ball was beyond the sideline plane and above the OB area when touched by R, the ball has gone OB untouched by R and the kick is OB.
I believe this is the Play Pic that Ralph said has been reinstated in the S&I because I know it was taken out for a few years. If it has been reinstated, I would lean towards the S&I over Reddings.
-
I agree with Ump33 because Ump33 agrees with me :).....
Back in 2000, Rule 6-1-9 was tweaked as it used to read "...kicked out of bounds between the goal lines LAST TOUCHED by K." This caused a kick in midfield, after several muffs, to become a foul if OOB last touched by K.
I was both the rule change sponsor and a member of the Editorial Committee back then and was responsible for case plays answering the "what ifs" that always occur with a rule change. A couple of "what ifs" that we tried to answer were:
(1) A bouncing kick near the sideline is touched by a R player who is touching the sideline. The general feeling back then was that was covered by 4-3-1 : "When a loose ball goes out of bounds, the out-of-bounds spot is fixed by the yard line where the foremost point of the ball crossed the sideline. When the ball becomes dead in THE FIELD OF PLAY BECAUSE OF TOUCHING A PERSON WHO IS OUT OF BOUNDS, THE OUT-OF-BOUNDS SPOT is fixed by the yard line through the foremost point of the ball."
(2) An airborne kick caught/touched by a R player touching the sidelines. While we felt this was also covered by 4-3-1, we added a caption of such to the S & I (pg 43, S & I 2004) with the explanation : "Since the receiver touched the kick with the ball INSIDE THE SIDELINE PLANE he is considered to have caused the ball to be out of bounds. The ball will be put in play at the inbounds spot...". Any of you (probably all of you) with posting capabilities, if you PM me your FAX #, I can FAX you a copy.
The Case Book and Simplified & Illustrated don't grow in size and every year perfectly valid cases and illustrations are removed to make room for newer ones. This issue raised it's ugly head last Fall when the Green Bay Packers receiving team pulled something like this off. My understanding was the Wisconsin high school officials were told not to allow it at our level. I've always felt that this was a fair interp and that 4-3-1 gave rule support. While some may feel that 9-6-2b could be applied, IMHO, you then would have to read intent. Hope this helps.
Both the Case Book and S & I are official NFHS rulings and trump other sources.
-
I agree with Ump33 because Ump33 agrees with me :).....
Back in 2000, Rule 6-1-9 was tweaked as it used to read "...kicked out of bounds between the goal lines LAST TOUCHED by R." This caused a kick in midfield, after several muffs, to become a foul if OOB last touched by K.
I was both the rule change sponsor and a member of the Editorial Committee back then and was responsible for case plays answering the "what ifs" that always occur with a rule change. A couple of "what ifs" that we tried to answer were:
(1) A bouncing kick near the sideline is touched by a R player who is touching the sideline. The general feeling back then was that was covered by 4-3-1 : "When a loose ball goes out of bounds, the out of bounds, the out-of-bounds spot is fixed by the yard line where the foremost point of the ball crossed the sideline. When the ball becomes dead in THE FIELD OF PLAY BECAUSE OF TOUCHING A PERSON WHO IS OUT OF BOUNDS, THE OUT-OF-BOUNDS SPOT is fixed by the yard line through the foremost point of the ball."
(2) An airborne kick caught/touched by a R player touching the sidelines. While we felt this was also covered by 4-3-1, we added a caption of such to the S & I (pg 43, S & I 2004) with the explanation : "Since the receiver touched the kick with the ball INSIDE THE SIDELINE PLANE he is considered to have caused the ball to be out of bounds. The ball will be put in play at the inbounds spot...". Any of you (probably all of you) with posting capabilities, if you PM me your FAX #, I can FAX you a copy.
The Case Book and Simplified & Illustrated don't grow in size and every year perfectly valid cases and illustrations are removed to make room for newer ones. This issue raised it's ugly head last Fall when the Green Bay Packers receiving team pulled something like this off. My understanding was the Wisconsin high school officials were told not to allow it at our level. I've always felt that this was a fair interp and that 4-3-1 gave rule support. While some may feel that9-6-2b could be applied, IMHO, you then would have to read intent. Hope this helps.
Both the Case Book and S & I are official NFHS rulings and trump other sources.
Perfect explanation Ralph. Thanks for the insight.
-
I agree with Ump33 because Ump33 agrees with me :).....
Back in 2000, Rule 6-1-9 was tweaked as it used to read "...kicked out of bounds between the goal lines LAST TOUCHED by K." This caused a kick in midfield, after several muffs, to become a foul if OOB last touched by K.
I was both the rule change sponsor and a member of the Editorial Committee back then and was responsible for case plays answering the "what ifs" that always occur with a rule change. A couple of "what ifs" that we tried to answer were:
(1) A bouncing kick near the sideline is touched by a R player who is touching the sideline. The general feeling back then was that was covered by 4-3-1 : "When a loose ball goes out of bounds, the out of bounds, the out-of-bounds spot is fixed by the yard line where the foremost point of the ball crossed the sideline. When the ball becomes dead in THE FIELD OF PLAY BECAUSE OF TOUCHING A PERSON WHO IS OUT OF BOUNDS, THE OUT-OF-BOUNDS SPOT is fixed by the yard line through the foremost point of the ball."
(2) An airborne kick caught/touched by a R player touching the sidelines. While we felt this was also covered by 4-3-1, we added a caption of such to the S & I (pg 43, S & I 2004) with the explanation : "Since the receiver touched the kick with the ball INSIDE THE SIDELINE PLANE he is considered to have caused the ball to be out of bounds. The ball will be put in play at the inbounds spot...". Any of you (probably all of you) with posting capabilities, if you PM me your FAX #, I can FAX you a copy.
The Case Book and Simplified & Illustrated don't grow in size and every year perfectly valid cases and illustrations are removed to make room for newer ones. This issue raised it's ugly head last Fall when the Green Bay Packers receiving team pulled something like this off. My understanding was the Wisconsin high school officials were told not to allow it at our level. I've always felt that this was a fair interp and that 4-3-1 gave rule support. While some may feel that9-6-2b could be applied, IMHO, you then would have to read intent. Hope this helps.
Both the Case Book and S & I are official NFHS rulings and trump other sources.
This is all fine and perfectly rationale. I wouldn't even say I necessarily disagree with the ruling in merit. I also agree that the Case Book and S&I trump Reddings in this case.
I guess my point of contention (which is much too strong a word) is now this: We (or at least I) have been working under the assumption that this play was a KOB foul for the past few years. That seemed supportable through the casebook and without this S&I diagram being there. The ruling was even supported by my state (GA).
Now, simply by adding a diagram back to the S&I book a totally new ruling has presented itself? No mention in the rule book as a rule change or editorial change? Some murky waters.
Not necessarily a criticism, but it's a little unsettling.
-
This is all fine and perfectly rationale. I wouldn't even say I necessarily disagree with the ruling in merit. I also agree that the Case Book and S&I trump Reddings in this case.
I guess my point of contention (which is much too strong a word) is now this: We (or at least I) have been working under the assumption that this play was a KOB foul for the past few years. That seemed supportable through the casebook and without this S&I diagram being there. The ruling was even supported by my state (GA).
Now, simply by adding a diagram back to the S&I book a totally new ruling has presented itself? No mention in the rule book as a rule change or editorial change? Some murky waters.
Not necessarily a criticism, but it's a little unsettling.
I agree that it should be more clearer and will lobby for Case 6.1.9C(b) to be more detailed as it now only reads : R has "(b) one foot on the sideline, when he reaches through the plane of the sideline. The ball bounces off his hands and lands out of bounds." The original version , 6-1-8C (pg38 2005 CB) read : (b) one foot on the sideline, when he reaches through the plane of the sideline. The ball was beyond the sideline plane when touched by R1; or (c) same as (b) EXCEPT THE BALL IS NOT BEYOND THE SIDELINE PLANE WHEN TOUCHED." RULING : (b) since R1 is out of bounds when the ball is touched, the kicker has caused to ball to be out of bounds BECAUSE IT WAS BEYOND THE PLANE OF THE SIDELINE WHEN FIRST TOUCHED BY R1. In (c) R1 HAS CAUSED THE BALL TO BE OUT OF BOUNDS."
Understand your confusion and , in the interest of conformity, should go by what your state dictates. In Maine, we'll do it the way we always have since 2000.
Univ. of Maine has played Georgia Southern a few times in post-season, but they play by a different set of laws :).
-
I agree with Ump33 because Ump33 agrees with me :).....
To paraphrase an old EF Hutton tv commercial ... When Ralph talks, I listen.
Thanks Ralph, I have learned much over the years from you.
-
Just so I understand, and maybe I still do not,
R1 is straddling the sideline at the 5 yard lane, left foot inbounds and right foot out of bounds, when he recovers a bouncing kickoff. If the ball bounces into his left hand, inside the vertical plane, the ball is OOB because R1 is OOB. 1st & 10 for R on the 5 yard line. If the ball bounces through the vertical plane into R1's right hand the ball is OOB because K kicked it OOB and we have a foul. R can take the ball on the 35 or back K up 5 yards and kick again.
-
Univ. of Maine has played Georgia Southern a few times in post-season, but they play by a different set of laws :).
I was a student one year when Maine played at Georgia Southern in the playoffs. Pretty sure it was the Quarterfinals.
We won. :)
-
To paraphrase an old EF Hutton tv commercial ... When Ralph talks, I listen.
I agree, except when he talks about the Patriots or Red Sox. (Disclaimer, just because he is right doesn't mean that I have to agree with him.)
-
Just so I understand, and maybe I still do not,
R1 is straddling the sideline at the 5 yard lane, left foot inbounds and right foot out of bounds, when he recovers a bouncing kickoff. If the ball bounces into his left hand, inside the vertical plane, the ball is OOB because R1 is OOB. 1st & 10 for R on the 5 yard line. If the ball bounces through the vertical plane into R1's right hand the ball is OOB because K kicked it OOB and we have a foul. R can take the ball on the 35 or back K up 5 yards and kick again.
Yes, that is the way I understand the rule.
-
A bouncing kick that has yet to touch OOB touches R, who is straddling the sideline = OOB caused by R, R has new series.
An airborne kick that touches R, who is straddling the sidelines, BEFORE the kick breaks the sideline plane = OOB caused by R, R has new series.
An airborne kick that touches R, who is straddling the sidelines, AFTER the kick breaks the sideline plane = OOB caused by K, foul.
On only an airborne kick would you need to consider the sideline plane. The feeling back in 2000 was that a bouncing kick was in bounds until it landed OOB. If it touched R ,who was touching OOB, it would be considered R fault the kick went OOB.
Hope that helps to make it clearer.
PS : SouthGA, I believe Maine has played Georgia Southern a few times.
I believe Maine has lost to Georgia Southern a few times.
South of Mason-Dixon, Maine football hasn't faired well :)...
-
???
I guess my question is about NFHS Rule 2-29-3, which states that "a loose ball is out of bounds when it touches anything, including a player or official, that is out of bounds". It doesn't say whether the ball crosses the line or not. If this kick touches an R player who is out of bounds, is not the ball out of bounds, regardless of where it is? Wouldn't this would make this a free kick out of bounds by K in both situations in NFHS?
-
???
I guess my question is about NFHS Rule 2-29-3, which states that "a loose ball is out of bounds when it touches anything, including a player or official, that is out of bounds". It doesn't say whether the ball crosses the line or not. If this kick touches an R player who is out of bounds, is not the ball out of bounds, regardless of where it is? Wouldn't this would make this a free kick out of bounds by K in both situations in NFHS?
The ball is out of bounds and the definition still holds true. The definition doesn't cover who is responsible for putting the ball out of bounds. That's what Ralph's explanation and the S&I Play Pic provide.
-
On only an airborne kick would you need to consider the sideline plane. The feeling back in 2000 was that a bouncing kick was in bounds until it landed OOB. If it touched R ,who was touching OOB, it would be considered R fault the kick went OOB.
Hope that helps to make it clearer.
Thank you for your time and patience, you've been very helpful. I don't like the differentiation between airborne and bouncing kicks. Just my opinion though.
K attempts a pooch kick, but shanks it. R runs 5 yards OOB near the 25 yard lane and catches the airborne kick on the fly. = OOB caused by K, foul. R takes the 5 yard penalty and we rekick.
K attempts another pooch kick and shanks it again, but not so bad. This time the ball lands inbounds and bounces once high in the air. R runs 5 yards OOB near the 25 yard lane and catches the kick before it touches the ground OB. = OOB caused by R, new series for R at the 25 yl.
That's going to be a tough sell.
-
We were going to put a rule change in last year to say "It is only a foul for KOB if the kick becomes OOB while on or over OOB territory". But I think we submitted it too late. There's always next year.
-
A "legal" pop up kick? ??
-
A "legal" pop up kick? ??
Yeah, that kick that looks like you hit it with a nine iron. I don't know what it would be called.
-
Yeah, that kick that looks like you hit it with a nine iron. I don't know what it would be called.
See rules 2-24-10 and 6-1-11.
-
See rules 2-26-10 and 6-1-11.
Rulesman: I believe you mean 2-24-10.
(I can't proofread my work either.)
-
Yeah, that kick that looks like you hit it with a nine iron. I don't know what it would be called.
Do you mean a "Pooch Kick?" That kick goes directly into the air without touching ground and looks like you hit it with a nine iron
-
Rulesman: I believe you mean 2-24-10.
(I can't proofread my work either.)
So noted and corrected. Thanks. That was a big fat fingered post.
-
See rules 2-24-10 and 6-1-11.
Do you think that helps? I get it, and said so. Not a pop up kick. I was referring to that short chip shot that that just clears the front line of R, but it is not driven immediately into the ground. So it looks like a pop up kick, but it's not, and it's legal. Someone else suggested a "pouch" kick. Is that what it is called? And I think he meant to type "pooch" actually.
-
Quick Question:
Free Kick bounces at 10 Yd Line nearing the sideline. R gets a glove on it but does not possess the ball. It continues out of bounds at the Yd. line. Do we have a penalty for kicking out of bounds or give it to R at the 8?
-
If both the kick and R were still in the field of play when he touched the kick, R get's it at the out-of-bounds spot.
-
Hate to bump a topic, but this seems relevant. Did anybody see the Duke/Temple game? Duke player ran out of bounds intentionally on a kickoff, fell to his knees, still oob, and picked up the kicked ball, which was at rest? Ruling on the field: " Since the player who touched the ball was oob at the time, the ball was oob by the KICKERS. Foul for illegal procedure. Duke got the ball at the 35.
-
Hate to bump a topic, but this seems relevant. Did anybody see the Duke/Temple game? Duke player ran out of bounds intentionally on a kickoff, fell to his knees, still oob, and picked up the kicked ball, which was at rest? Ruling on the field: " Since the player who touched the ball was oob at the time, the ball was oob by the KICKERS. Foul for illegal procedure. Duke got the ball at the 35.
I saw that. In NFHS, that should be illegal participation on R. That being the case, would the illegal participation and KOB offset and replay the kick?
Also curious if that is IP in NCAA rules?
-
I think the OOB restrictions only apply to A/K.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I think the OOB restrictions only apply to A/B
No books handy, but I’m pretty sure it’s a foul for any player to intentionally go OOB and influence the play.
-
Also curious if that is IP in NCAA rules?
It isn't. NCAA does not have a concept of the team B/R player of voluntarily going out of bounds ever being a foul. The restrictions always apply only to team A/K players.
-
That being the case, would the illegal participation and KOB offset and replay the kick?
That "otherwise participate" IP rule is one of the worst on the books. Tweaking the definition of "Player OOB" and clarifying this KOB rule would make the rule obsolete.
I don't think this is KOB in NFHS because the ball was not on or above OOB territory when it became dead. There is a case book interpretation.
So I'm assuming that IP foul is live ball. Previous spot enforcement. So, it's probably declined. Dumb rule.
-
This came up in a championship game here, I'd appreciate the thoughts of the group on this scenario:
K lines up in a legal free kick formation. K1 kicks the ball to the R-15, near the sideline. It bounces to the R-11 untouched, inches from the sideline, but does not go out of bounds.
As the coverage team advances, K15 is pushed out of bounds at the R-22. K15 continues down the sideline, out of bounds, to the R-11 and falls on the ball to recover it. As he lands on the ball, the ball is in-bounds and the top half of his body is in the field of play, while the bottom half of his body is still out of bounds.
In this scenario, K15 did not re-establish himself inbounds, and the ball was untouched by R. Under the rules, this is how I see it - but it has caused quite a bit of disagreement and discussion:
K15 did not re-establish himself inbounds, but proceeded OOB to the ball, therefore we have a flag for illegal participation. Further, under rule 2-29-3 (A loose ball is out of bounds when it touches anything, including a player or game official that is out of bounds.), with K15 being out of bounds when he touches it, the ball is ruled OOB.
It is my position that we have a flag now for KOB, in addition to the flag for IP.
R now has the following options:
Accept IP, Decline KOB
Option 1 - Loose ball foul for IP, enforce from the previous spot, 15 yards and re-kick
Option 2 - Under the 10-4-2 Exception, R may choose to enforce from the 11, 15 yards, R 1-10 at the 26
OR
Decline IP, Accept KOB
Option 1 - Enforce from the 11, plus 5 yards. R 1-10 at the 16
Option 2 - KOB - R 1-10 at the 35
This does not fall under the 6-1-9C Case Book scenario, as it is K who is rendering the ball OOB.
Essentially it comes down to R selecting either to play 1-10 from the 35, or move K back to their 25 and re-kick.
Am I accurate in this thinking? Or no?
-
Correct, as I understand it.
9.6.1 requires K15 to return inbounds "at the first opportunity." 11 yards seems too far. If K15 could have returned sooner but failed to do so it is a foul for illegal participation when he touched the ball. If he was actually "ridden" by the blocker for 10 yards and touched the ball as soon as he got loose I don't have a flag for IP.
In either case there is a foul for the KO OOB when K15 touches it.
-
Your assumption is correct, he was not ridden out of bounds, simply bumped out and he traveled on his own down the sideline, 2 yards out of bounds before jumping on the ball.
-
This is more complicated than it seems. For K to be guilty of IP, one of two things must be true. Either he came back inbounds late after being blocked OOB, or he INTENTIONALLY went OOB and then influenced the play. I get the fact that he influenced the play, but he didn’t INTENTIONALLY go OOB, or did he? And he never returned Inbounds.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Either he came back inbounds late after being blocked OOB, or he INTENTIONALLY went OOB and then influenced the play. I get the fact that he influenced the play, but he didn’t INTENTIONALLY go OOB, or did he? And he never returned Inbounds.
He did not intentionally go out of bounds. But he also failed to return inbounds at the "earliest opportunity", as he was unobstructed on the sideline and could have stepped right back inbounds in 2-3 strides, well before the 11. In fact, he NEVER returned inbounds and never made an effort to return inbounds to establish himself until he jumped on the ball sitting next to the sideline, and he was still partially out of bounds when he recovered the ball.
-
Which is my point. As I read the rule, K is restricted from coming back INBOUNDS prior to a change of possession unless he was forced out and comes back immediately. This didn’t happen. He was forced out, but never came back in. There is nothing illegal about staying out of bounds.
The other restriction is against any player INTENTIONALLY going out of bounds and either returning, OR INTENTIONALLY touching the ball, OR influencing the play, Or otherwise participating.
I agree K did the last three. He intentionally touched the ball, he influenced the play, and he otherwise participated, whatever that means. The problem is that he did not INTENTIONALLY go out of bounds. In other words, it was not his intention to gain an advantage by going out of bounds.
That’s why I have a problem with IP in this situation. I do agree we have a kick oob and a flag on K for that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Which is my point. As I read the rule, K is restricted from coming back INBOUNDS prior to a change of possession unless he was forced out and comes back immediately. This didn’t happen. He was forced out, but never came back in. There is nothing illegal about staying out of bounds.
The other restriction is against any player INTENTIONALLY going out of bounds and either returning, OR INTENTIONALLY touching the ball, OR influencing the play, Or otherwise participating.
I agree K did the last three. He intentionally touched the ball, he influenced the play, and he otherwise participated, whatever that means. The problem is that he did not INTENTIONALLY go out of bounds. In other words, it was not his intention to gain an advantage by going out of bounds.
That’s why I have a problem with IP in this situation. I do agree we have a kick oob and a flag on K for that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
True, he was not OOB intentionally to gain an advantage, but he did not return immediately thus gaining an advantage by staying OOB for 11 yards. Would you not have 2 fouls on K, free kick OOB and illegal participation for not returning inbounds immediately and then influencing the play?
-
I don’t think so. It’s not a foul for a player to stay oob. The foul comes when/ if the player comes back in, with the exception of the K player who is forced out coming back in at the first opportunity. The rule doesn’t say the player MUST come back inbounds, only that if he does, it must be at the first opportunity.
9-6-1.
9-6-2 covers the player who goes out of bounds intentionally. This player CAN go out of bounds intentionally with no foul. However, he can’t intentionally go out of bounds and then intentionally touch the ball, influence the play, or otherwise participate.
I may be reading too much into the word intentionally, but the Redding Guide certainly does emphasize that accidentally or being forced out matters as far as 9-6-2 is concerned.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
But he didn't stay out of bounds and he did influence the play, he just failed to return at the first opportunity. Had he stayed out of bounds and not participated, there would be nothing here. He gained advantage (and I am introducing new details here) by bypassing R players in the field of play as he ran out of bounds, and only returned at the spot of the ball at rest. As soon as he pounced on the ball, he was participating again, and given that he did not return at the earliest opportunity, that now becomes illegal participation.
I wish I could share video of the play in question, I think it would be easier to see it than go off of my sparse description.
-
A video would certainly be helpful. You stated in your post that K15 did not reestablish himself inbounds. I took that to me he never returned. Also, you posted that the top half of his body was inbounds and the lower half was oob when he touched the ball. By rule, he was oob. To come back or reestablish himself inbounds, all of him would need to be inbounds. As I posted previously, I have no doubt he influenced the play. My only concern is the presence of the word intentional in the rule. A plain reading of that text seems to imply that a player is guilty of IP in this situation only if he intentionally goes out of bounds and then influences the play- as opposed to being pushed out by his opponent, or even accidentally once possession has changed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Nothing new, I'm bumping this back to the top because I am working on something and want to study some of the replies.
-
I agree with Ump33 because Ump33 agrees with me :).....
Back in 2000, Rule 6-1-9 was tweaked as it used to read "...kicked out of bounds between the goal lines LAST TOUCHED by K." This caused a kick in midfield, after several muffs, to become a foul if OOB last touched by K.
I was both the rule change sponsor and a member of the Editorial Committee back then and was responsible for case plays answering the "what ifs" that always occur with a rule change. A couple of "what ifs" that we tried to answer were:
(1) A bouncing kick near the sideline is touched by a R player who is touching the sideline. The general feeling back then was that was covered by 4-3-1 : "When a loose ball goes out of bounds, the out-of-bounds spot is fixed by the yard line where the foremost point of the ball crossed the sideline. When the ball becomes dead in THE FIELD OF PLAY BECAUSE OF TOUCHING A PERSON WHO IS OUT OF BOUNDS, THE OUT-OF-BOUNDS SPOT is fixed by the yard line through the foremost point of the ball."
(2) An airborne kick caught/touched by a R player touching the sidelines. While we felt this was also covered by 4-3-1, we added a caption of such to the S & I (pg 43, S & I 2004) with the explanation : "Since the receiver touched the kick with the ball INSIDE THE SIDELINE PLANE he is considered to have caused the ball to be out of bounds. The ball will be put in play at the inbounds spot...". Any of you (probably all of you) with posting capabilities, if you PM me your FAX #, I can FAX you a copy.
The Case Book and Simplified & Illustrated don't grow in size and every year perfectly valid cases and illustrations are removed to make room for newer ones. This issue raised it's ugly head last Fall when the Green Bay Packers receiving team pulled something like this off. My understanding was the Wisconsin high school officials were told not to allow it at our level. I've always felt that this was a fair interp and that 4-3-1 gave rule support. While some may feel that 9-6-2b could be applied, IMHO, you then would have to read intent. Hope this helps.
Both the Case Book and S & I are official NFHS rulings and trump other sources.
Back to supplement current debate. I stand by this interp and we have used it in Maine since inception. I feel it is fair and easy to call as we have 4 officials on the sidelines for a free kick and have a good view of the kick being in/out of bounds when touched by OOB R player. I would be hesitant in applying 9-6-2b for 2 reasons:
(1) A challange to prove intent on a kid focusing on the ball and not on position of his feet;
(2) IP call would require previous spot enforcement and re-kick. Some feel the kickoff is the most dangerous play in football. No need to re-kick, just give the ball to R where the OOB R player touched it.
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: (5-man crew)
NOTE: Reference post# 11 on this topic. A copy of S & I pic of this is provided
-
So splain me this! K kicks the ball, clearly going OOB, but at the last second, R gets a hand out and touches it before it goes out. FLAG?
-
So splain me this! K kicks the ball, clearly going OOB, but at the last second, R gets a hand out and touches it before it goes out. FLAG?
NOPE- poor play by R.
-
Thank you! I misread an earlier post!