Illegal participation for a receiver going out of bounds

[pjsaul]

NFHS 9-6-1 (paraphrased): Team A/K cannot go out of bounds and return to the field of play unless blocked out by an opponent.

I want to imagine three scenarios here...

Scenario 1: Receiver A12 is running a deep route down the sideline, without a team B player in sight.  As he is running his route, he accidentally has one foot land out of bounds.  A few steps later, he catches the ball in stride and runs in to the end zone untouched.

Scenario 2: Receiver A12 is running a deep route down the sideline, without a team B player in sight.  As he is running his route, he accidentally has one foot land out of bounds.  A few steps later, he catches the ball in stride, but his first step with the ball in his control is out of bounds.

Scenario 3: Receiver A12 is running a deep route down the sideline, without a team B player in sight.  As he is running his route, he accidentally has one foot land out of bounds.  A few steps later, he catches the ball in stride, and immediately runs out of bounds after possessing the catch in bounds.

In scenario 1, it seems you have no choice but to throw a flag for illegal participation in order to wipe team A's touchdown off the board.  In scenario 2, do you still throw a flag?  It seems excessive to penalize a team 15 yards for this accident, seeing as how the play results an incompletion.  What about scenario 3?

[prab]

1.  IP

2. It is not clear to me whether A12 returned in bounds before touching the ball.  If so, IP.  If not incomplete pass. 

3.  IP

The punishment does not always fit the crime.

[HLinNC]

Since your flag should be at the spot the receiver returned in-bounds, it is kind of hard to foresee the future a few seconds later and realize you have an incomplete.  If you go back and drop the flag, you are really going to look like horse padooby.

[pjsaul]

Thanks for the feedback gents - I'll be flagging this the moment the receiver continues participating in the play.

Now, for the next rule.  How do you define intentionally going out of bound for 9-6-2?  What is the threshold of intent?

[wvoref]

Unfortunately the way the NF rule is written he has committed IP as soon as he continues. It doesn't matter if a pass is thrown at all, let alone if its thrown to him. I have "crusaded" for a switch to something resembling the NCAA rule for years but to no avail.

[AlUpstateNY]

Thanks for the feedback gents - I'll be flagging this the moment the receiver continues participating in the play.

Now, for the next rule.  How do you define intentionally going out of bound for 9-6-2?  What is the threshold of intent?

Anything that is NOT forced.

[prab]

Anything that is NOT forced.

I would word it somewhat differently.  For purposes of 9-6-2, I would define intent as going out of bounds when another legal option was available.  This covers not only someone who was forced out as AlUpstateNY mentions, but also a player who goes out of bounds to avoid a legal block, etc. 

[AlUpstateNY]

I would word it somewhat differently.  For purposes of 9-6-2, I would define intent as going out of bounds when another legal option was available.  This covers not only someone who was forced out as AlUpstateNY mentions, but also a player who goes out of bounds to avoid a legal block, etc.

Wouldn't, "a player who goes out of bounds to avoid a legal block" ALWAYS be intentional?  The object of NF 9-6-2 seems to be to specifically limit ANY participation in the game to between the sidelines as utilizing the areas outside the lines gives that individual an unfair advantage in escaping what would be a fairly gained advantage by the opponent in pinning him to the sideline.

[prab]

Wouldn't, "a player who goes out of bounds to avoid a legal block" ALWAYS be intentional?  YES! The object of NF 9-6-2 seems to be to specifically limit ANY participation in the game to between the sidelines as utilizing the areas outside the lines gives that individual an unfair advantage in escaping what would be a fairly gained advantage by the opponent in pinning him to the sideline.

I was just trying to say that "Anything that is NOT forced" doesn't cover all the possibilities. 

[prab]

I should know better than to post after 10 PM and on a weekend to boot.  So, let me try again.

pjsaul asked "How do you define intentionally going out of bound for 9-6-2?  What is the threshold of intent?"

AlUpstate NY responded "Anything that is NOT forced."

I believe that  "not being forced out" is one factor that you can use to help judge intent (for purposes of 9-6-2), but that it is not sufficient enough to use as prima facie evidence that intent was involved.  For instance:

Eligible receiver A88 is running a long pass route near the sideline.  B1 is covering him and steps out of bounds untouched by A88.  B1 returns inbounds and successfully bats the pass away.  Here B1 goes out of bounds UNFORCED, returns and intentionally touches the ball.  According to the "anything that is NOT forced" criteria, this is IP.  However, it seems like B1's going out of bounds in this situation could just as easily be ruled accidental and therefore not IP.

[AlUpstateNY]

I should know better than to post after 10 PM and on a weekend to boot.  So, let me try again.

pjsaul asked "How do you define intentionally going out of bound for 9-6-2?  What is the threshold of intent?"

AlUpstate NY responded "Anything that is NOT forced."

I believe that  "not being forced out" is one factor that you can use to help judge intent (for purposes of 9-6-2), but that it is not sufficient enough to use as prima facie evidence that intent was involved.  For instance:

Eligible receiver A88 is running a long pass route near the sideline.  B1 is covering him and steps out of bounds untouched by A88.  B1 returns inbounds and successfully bats the pass away.  Here B1 goes out of bounds UNFORCED, returns and intentionally touches the ball.  According to the "anything that is NOT forced" criteria, this is IP.  However, it seems like B1's going out of bounds in this situation could just as easily be ruled accidental and therefore not IP.

Forgive me,I interpreted your original question as relating to "A" players. You may note in NF 9-6-1 specific reference to, "No player of "A" or "K" shall go out of bounds and return to the field during the down..." which is in consideration of the fact that, "A" or "K" has advance notice of where the play is (supposed) to go.  "B", or "R" is in more of a reactive mode as determined by the events as they unfold, calling for additional leeway for unintentional contact with the sideline.

However there are all sorts of variables possible relating to this rule and "B" or "K" is NOT entitled to any action creating an unfair advantage, which necessitates a judgment by the covering official.  Careful analysis of the entire Case Book section devoted to Rule 9-6 may assist your perspective relating to this rule.

[Ralph Damren]

Potential fouls committed by B11 (better known as Bubba) :
           
      (1) Illegal personal contact (9-4) called by covering official or prom queen's dad.
      (2) Illegal touching
      (3) First touching -probably not of prom queens of this era - not a foul ,anyway.
      (4) Butt Blocking...ala Blubber McGirth in movie "Porky's"
      (5) Roughing the snapper  includes a new series.....

There are probably several other double entente fouls that could be called....cheer up ,guys, the NFHS questionnaire should be posted soon.....        

[FLAHL]

      (5) Roughing the snapper  includes a new series.....
     

Funniest line of the year!!   

[bama_stripes]

Cheer up ,guys, the NFHS questionnaire should be posted soon.....   

Got my link today.