Being out of bounds and touching ball inbounds

[Badger1]

During the GB Packers game against the Detroit Lions this past weekend a Packer intentionally went out of bounds during the kickoff (he was on the receiving team) and touched the ball while it was inbounds near the goal line while he was still out of bounds causing the ball to be dead.  Now I have been asked by a high school coach if this play would be legal under NFHS rules.  I believe it would be a violation of Rule 9 Section 6 Article 2 (b&c).  However, several officials on another website I belong to believe it a legal play as the kick receiver never returned back to the field prior to touching the ball.  Asking for your opinions on the play.

[bama_stripes]

Sounds like cheating to me.

A player who intentionally goes OOB & then participates is guilty of Illegal Participation.  There used to be a Case Book play about a receiver who intentionally went beyond B's end line, jumped, and batted a pass back to a teammate.  That was ruled IP, even though he never came back inbounds.

[Ralph Damren]

I believe what you believe. 9-6-2b :" No player shall intentionally go out of bounds during the down and intentionally touch the ball."  IMHO, that sez' it all. I don't see why the Packer player thought it was a good idea as that gave them the ball deep in their territory vs letting it go into EZ for a TB. In NFHS, it would be IP with the free kick repeated at R's 45 or take the play with R's ball deep.

[bossman72]

So, devil's advocate, if you judge R to have UNINTENTIONALLY stepped out of bounds, this is a KOB foul then, correct?

[prab]

So, devil's advocate, if you judge R to have UNINTENTIONALLY stepped out of bounds, this is a KOB foul then, correct?

I am going to disagree on this new scenario.

It is only KOB if it goes out of bounds untouched by R.  Here R clearly touched it and the touching is clearly a factor in the ball gaining out of bounds status.

[Badger1]

Hey bossman72,  Unfortunately Rule 9 Section 6 Illegal Participation doesn't address the receiving team accidentally being out of bounds and then touching the live ball.  So I guess playing devil's advocate you would be correct?

[Ralph Damren]

Back in 2000 we tweaked the KOB rule that used to read : " foul...if LAST TOUCHED by K" . This allowed a kick that was muffed by several opponents and was last touched by K before OOB to be a foul. With the new rule came a lobster trap full (colloquialism for : "a lot of') new cases. One such showed (S & I) and told (case book) of a R player straddling the sidelines and catching the free kick. The ruling then was : "If the airborne kick had broken the sideline plane when touched, it is considered KOB; if not,  it would be R's ball there touched." That case, as many accurate cases, have since disappeared as 20-30 new cases are added each year and we don't want a case book the size of NYC phone directory. IMHO, giving the ball to R at the spot of the touch without KOB or IP flags would be the fairest way if the OOB contact was unintentional.

[Ironhead17]

We had a similar case last week where K was last to touch ball during an onside kick attempt. Went beyond 10 yds. before it was touched and untouched by R. White hat wobbled over and said we had a penalty as I marked the OOB spot. I agreed and dropped the flag. We're not dealing w/ IP at all here but you can't ignore the KOB.

[Ia-Ref]

Back in 2000 we tweaked the KOB rule that used to read : " foul...if LAST TOUCHED by K" . This allowed a kick that was muffed by several opponents and was last touched by K before OOB to be a foul. With the new rule came a lobster trap full (colloquialism for : "a lot of') new cases. One such showed (S & I) and told (case book) of a R player straddling the sidelines and catching the free kick. The ruling then was : "If the airborne kick had broken the sideline plane when touched, it is considered KOB; if not,  it would be R's ball there touched." That case, as many accurate cases, have since disappeared as 20-30 new cases are added each year and we don't want a case book the size of NYC phone directory. IMHO, giving the ball to R at the spot of the touch without KOB or IP flags would be the fairest way if the OOB contact was unintentional.

Ralph, I believe you are referencing the following from 2007 (and others) CASE BOOK;

CAUSING  FREE KICK TO BE OUT OF BOUNDS
6.1.8 Situation C: (selecting only example "b")
R1 is running near a sideline as he attempts to catch a free kick in flight.
R1 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.
RULING: (b) since R1 is out of bounds when the ball was touched, the kicker has caused the ball to be out of bounds.

The problem with this example is that it does not say which way R1 is reaching and what side of the sideline the ball is when it is touched.
If R1 is oob and reaching into the field of play, then I maintain the kicker did not cause the kick to be oob.
If R1 was reaching for the ball after it crossed the sideline the kicker did cause it to be oob like the Case Book example.

Does it matter which side of the sideline the ball in flight is when it gets touched?

[bossman72]

Back in 2000 we tweaked the KOB rule that used to read : " foul...if LAST TOUCHED by K" . This allowed a kick that was muffed by several opponents and was last touched by K before OOB to be a foul. With the new rule came a lobster trap full (colloquialism for : "a lot of') new cases. One such showed (S & I) and told (case book) of a R player straddling the sidelines and catching the free kick. The ruling then was : "If the airborne kick had broken the sideline plane when touched, it is considered KOB; if not,  it would be R's ball there touched." That case, as many accurate cases, have since disappeared as 20-30 new cases are added each year and we don't want a case book the size of NYC phone directory. IMHO, giving the ball to R at the spot of the touch without KOB or IP flags would be the fairest way if the OOB contact was unintentional.

Ralph,

Would it make sense to just add this sentence to the rule:

(Original)

ART. 8 . . . A free kick shall not be kicked out of bounds between the goal lines untouched inbounds by R. If it is kicked out of bounds and R does not accept a penalty for kick-catch interference on the same kick as in 6-5-4, R has the following choices:

(New)

ART. 8 . . . A free kick shall not be kicked out of bounds between the goal lines untouched inbounds by R.  It is only a foul if the ball becomes out of bounds while on or above out of bounds territory. If it is kicked out of bounds and R does not accept a penalty for kick-catch interference on the same kick as in 6-5-4, R has the following choices:

[Ralph Damren]

Ralph, I believe you are referencing the following from 2007 (and others) CASE BOOK;

CAUSING  FREE KICK TO BE OUT OF BOUNDS
6.1.8 Situation C: (selecting only example "b")
R1 is running near a sideline as he attempts to catch a free kick in flight.
R1 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.
RULING: (b) since R1 is out of bounds when the ball was touched, the kicker has caused the ball to be out of bounds.

The problem with this example is that it does not say which way R1 is reaching and what side of the sideline the ball is when it is touched.
If R1 is oob and reaching into the field of play, then I maintain the kicker did not cause the kick to be oob.
If R1 was reaching for the ball after it crossed the sideline the kicker did cause it to be oob like the Case Book example.

Does it matter which side of the sideline the ball in flight is when it gets touched?

IMHO, it does. S & I 2003 p.40, with illustrated pics, sez' : (With R straddling the sideline) "..since the receiver touched the kick with the ball inside the sideline plane he is considered to have the caused the ball to be out of bounds. The ball will be put in play at the inbounds spot..."

Ralph,

Would it make sense to just add this sentence to the rule:

(Original)

ART. 8 . . . A free kick shall not be kicked out of bounds between the goal lines untouched inbounds by R. If it is kicked out of bounds and R does not accept a penalty for kick-catch interference on the same kick as in 6-5-4, R has the following choices:

(New)

ART. 8 . . . A free kick shall not be kicked out of bounds between the goal lines untouched inbounds by R.  It is only a foul if the ball becomes out of bounds while on or above out of bounds territory. If it is kicked out of bounds and R does not accept a penalty for kick-catch interference on the same kick as in 6-5-4, R has the following choices:

Ralph,

Would it make sense to just add this sentence to the rule:

(Original)

ART. 8 . . . A free kick shall not be kicked out of bounds between the goal lines untouched inbounds by R. If it is kicked out of bounds and R does not accept a penalty for kick-catch interference on the same kick as in 6-5-4, R has the following choices:

(New)

ART. 8 . . . A free kick shall not be kicked out of bounds between the goal lines untouched inbounds by R.  It is only a foul if the ball becomes out of bounds while on or above out of bounds territory. If it is kicked out of bounds and R does not accept a penalty for kick-catch interference on the same kick as in 6-5-4, R has the following choices:

Yo, Bossman. Yes it would. Seems like a good proposal to add. Thanks

[refjimb]

Now I think that I have confused myself, so just want to clarify to see if I have the consensus right:

In the Packers game, they ruled (correctly apparently) that it was a KO OOB penalty.  I believe we are saying that in NFHS this would be an IP on the R player for going OOB and then touching the ball. 

What about a player who is straddling the sideline with one foot in and one foot out?  Is this where the location of the ball in relation to the SL come into play?

(Side note:  This would make sense as it is the same principle used when a ball is downed by K on a scrimmage kick where the player has his feet in the EZ, but downs the ball in the field of play)

Thanks!

[Ralph Damren]

IMHO, it would. While the supporting case back in 2000 no longer is published, there haven't been any rule changes that invalidate it. If R, who is OOB by rule, touches a kick that is still inbounds; it wouldn't seem fair ,to me, to rule that the kickers caused the kick to go OOB.

[prab]

The Wisconsin governing body (WIAA) just sent out an email to all officials regarding the Packer play in the OP.  The WIAA considers it to be Illegal Participation under NFHS rules.  They cite the same reasons as many have voiced in this thread. 

For historic reference, the Packers did this same thing in a game in 2011, with a similar ruling of KOB.

[Ralph Damren]

The Wisconsin governing body (WIAA) just sent out an email to all officials regarding the Packer play in the OP.  The WIAA considers it to be Illegal Participation under NFHS rules.  They cite the same reasons as many have voiced in this thread. 

For historic reference, the Packers did this same thing in a game in 2011, with a similar ruling of KOB.

I thought it was only Coach B & the Pats that came up with stuff like that !

[Ralph Damren]

Only dusting off this musty ole' post to supplement current topic of KFOB. 

[refjeff]

Case Book 9.6.2 Situation C covers this play exactly.

It is illegal participation.

This play happens a couple of times every NFL season.  High school coaches will teach their players to do the same thing.   Our rules are different.

[bossman72]

Case Book 9.6.2 Situation C covers this play exactly.

It is illegal participation.

This play happens a couple of times every NFL season.  High school coaches will teach their players to do the same thing.   Our rules are different.

The thing is though, do you also call KOB and have these fouls offset?  Or just IP?  If so, is it previous spot enforcement?

[CalhounLJ]

The thing is though, do you also call KOB and have these fouls offset?  Or just IP?  If so, is it previous spot enforcement?

I don’t think you can get by with calling this a KOB. It’s gotta be IP with previous spot enforcement.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bama_stripes]

I don’t think you can get by with calling this a KOB. It’s gotta be IP with previous spot enforcement.

Agree.  I’m not going to let a team cause a foul on their opponent by cheating.

[NVFOA_Ump]

IMHO the only decision here is why is K OB?  If in our judgement, as in the OP, it was clearly intentional then we've got IP.  If K was simply trying to field the kick and accidently stepped on the sideline just before touching the ball then we have a KOB.  And I agree with Calhoun and Bama, we've got 1 or the other, not both.

[Ralph Damren]

This is not ths question's first rodeo. You guys might find interesting the topic of 'kickoff out of bounds' by RefJeff that drew 50+ posts and has had 16,000+ views. Post "11 has the S & I pic illustrating this situation.

[SCHSref]

What about Case Play 6.1.9 C?

[CalhounLJ]

What about Case Play 6.1.9 C?

That’s the difference between intentionally going out of bounds to cause a penalty and intentionally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ralph Damren]

What about Case Play 6.1.9 C?

When written back in 2000, 6.1.9C had subsections (b) & (c). It read:

"(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.{same as current book}. (c) SAME AS (b) ONLY BALL HAS NOT REACHED THE SIDELINE PLANE.
RULING: (b) Since R1 is out of bounds when the ball is touched,the kicker has caused the ball to be out of bounds. (c) SINCE THE BALL HAS YET TO BREAK THE SIDELINE PLANE, IT WILL BE R'S BALL AT POINT IT WAS TOUCHED."

In writing the cases for this rule change back in 2000, we kept in mind that the change was focused on fairness as "..last touched by K" wasn't fair for several R players could have muffed the kick before K and wasn't fair. The same was felt about a kick that was still in the field of play when touched by OOB R. Some of you may still have case books from that era and can verify. No rule change sine 2000 has negated (c) and the fact that it was shaved doesn't mean that it's not still valid.

On a personal note, back in 2000 the Patriots had never won a Super Bowl and the Red Sox hadn't won a World Series since 1918  !