kickoff out of bounds?

[Regno71]

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.

[CalhounLJ]

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

[refjeff]

Nothing new, I'm bumping this back to the top because I am working on something and want to study some of the replies.

[Ralph Damren]

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.

  (5-man crew)

NOTE: Reference post# 11 on this topic. A copy of S & I pic of this is provided

[animalspooker]

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?

[Ralph Damren]

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.

[animalspooker]

Thank you!  I misread an earlier post!