Question on two different plays

[Gray Hare]

Play #1:  During a touchdown run by A, B is guilty of a face mask penalty.  A decides to enforce the penalty on the kickoff.  During the successful point after kick, B is guilty of a face mask penalty.  My question is , can A have this penalty enforce on the kickoff as well or if accepted, must it be enforced on the try?

Play #2:  A has the ball 1st and ten on the B 15 yd line.  Receiver A85 runs his route to the goal line, near the sideline.  As the pass approaches him, A85 jumps up to make the catch, but his foot knocks over the pylon on his way "up".  He catches the pass and lands with both feet inside the endzone.  My question is, do you have a problem here with the pylon contact?

In both cases I am looking for high school rule enforcement.

Thanks in advance.......GH

[Atlanta Blue]

#1:  Yes, both penalties may be enforced on the kickoff.

#2:  A went OOB voluntarily and returned to play.  Illegal Participation.

That being said, I think this is WAY too harsh a penalty for the infraction.  I would rather it was simply called an incomplete pass.  But no way does the TD stand.

[Ump33]

AB, Sorry for repeating ... my search and peck typing skills are slow at best. I also agree with the harshness of Play #2.

Play #1:  During a touchdown run by A, B is guilty of a face mask penalty.  A decides to enforce the penalty on the kickoff.  During the successful point after kick, B is guilty of a face mask penalty.  My question is , can A have this penalty enforce on the kickoff as well or if accepted, must it be enforced on the try?

Play #2:  A has the ball 1st and ten on the B 15 yd line.  Receiver A85 runs his route to the goal line, near the sideline.  As the pass approaches him, A85 jumps up to make the catch, but his foot knocks over the pylon on his way "up".  He catches the pass and lands with both feet inside the endzone.  My question is, do you have a problem here with the pylon contact?

In both cases I am looking for high school rule enforcement.

Thanks in advance.......GH

Play #1: Yes, both fouls can "carry over" to the Kickoff.

Casebook 8.2.2 SITUATION F: During a touchdown run by A1, B1 holds. During the successful kick try, there is a foul by B2. RULING: If A accepts the penalty for B’s holding foul, A may accept the score and attempt the try from the 1½-yard line or accept the score and have the penalty enforced on the subsequent kickoff. For a foul on the try, A may accept and replay the try from the 3/4-yard line or accept the 1-point try and enforce the penalty for B’s try foul on the subsequent kickoff. The captain of A may choose to have both penalties enforced on the subsequent kickoff.

Play #2: By rule, Receiver A85 is technically out of bounds if he contacts the pylon as he "jumps up to make the catch, but his foot knocks over the pylon on his way "up"". Even worse, he is also guilty of Illegal Participation if he returns inbounds.

1-2-4 . . . A soft, flexible pylon, which is 4 inches square, 18 inches high, either orange, red or yellow in color, and does not constitute a safety hazard, shall be placed at the inside corner of each of the intersections of the sidelines with the goal lines and the end lines, as well as with each intersection of the hash marks extended and shall be placed either 3 feet beyond the end lines or on the end lines. When properly placed, the goal line pylon is out of bounds at the intersection of the sideline and the goal line extended.

2-29-1 . . . A player or other person is out of bounds when any part of the person is touching anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside the sideline or end line.

In Rule 1-2-4, that is why we place the pylons 3 feet beyond the end line at the intersection of the hash marks extended. I thought there was a Case Book example on this type of play but I have not been able to locate it.

[lawdog]

In Rule 1-2-4, that is why we place the pylons 3 feet beyond the end line at the intersection of the hash marks extended. I thought there was a Case Book example on this type of play but I have not been able to locate it.

Didn't that change so they are back on the endline?

[Atlanta Blue]

Didn't that change so they are back on the endline?

No, but it isn't a requirement that they be three feet off, it's a choice of off or on the end line.

[AlUpstateNY]

This sounds like a perfect example of where being technically right isn't anyway near all it's cracked up to be, or being the right thing to do.  Is there some sort of advantage being gained that would call for the application of an illegal participation call to be added to simply ruling the pass incomplete?  We're each given the authority to do what we think is right, and of course we each have to be willing to stand by those decisions.

[Atlanta Blue]

We're each given the authority to do what we think is right, and of course we each have to be willing to stand by those decisions.

While I agree with your sentiment on this play, you are NOT given the authority to do what YOU think is right, you are given the authority to enforce the rules.  This isn't a grey area of interpretation (e.g, holding away from the point of attack), either he voluntarily went OOB and returned or he didn't.  It's a question of fact, not of judgment.

If the kid catches the pass, but you call it incomplete without a flag because he hit the pylon, you get turned into the state office on Monday for that one.

Your choices on this play would be to award the catch (a blatant disregard of the rule that can be covered by "I didn't see him hit the pylon"), or to throw the flag for IP.  Calling it incomplete because he hit the pylon has no legal support.

[LarryW60]

While it's a shame that the receiver has to get an IP flag for touching the pylon even though he was inbounds when he started his leap and inbounds when he ended his leap, that IS the rule.  If a coach got in my face about it all I could offer him was my general agreement on how it sucked, but that until the rule is modified somehow, this is the ONLY way we can rule on it.  (A subtle hint to maybe work up a rule change proposal)

[AlUpstateNY]

Your choices on this play would be to award the catch (a blatant disregard of the rule that can be covered by "I didn't see him hit the pylon"), or to throw the flag for IP.  Calling it incomplete because he hit the pylon has no legal support.

While I absolutely agree with your technical assessment, the way I would likely handle it is call the pass incomplete, very possibly give an unauthorized OOB wave signal, for clarification, and be prepared to deal with whatever explanations became necessary, although I doubt there would be any adverse report made up the ladder.

If somehow the matter would up in a courtroom, I'd have to rely on the mercy of the court and the skill of my attorney.  Sometimes doing the right thing isn't all it's cracked up to be either, and even doing the right thing has risk associated with it.

[lawdog]

No, but it isn't a requirement that they be three feet off, it's a choice of off or on the end line.

Then it must be the state who told us to put them back on.  I know we were told off is no longer where they were supposed to be here.

[Gray Hare]

The reason I brought up play #2 is because that is what happened in the UCF vs Marshall game last night on ESPN.  After review they let the TD stand.

[110]

Wouldn't the player stepping OOB make the ball OOB by rule, as the ball has touched an object or player OOB? Ergo, incomplete - and nothing else?

[Welpe]

The reason I brought up play #2 is because that is what happened in the UCF vs Marshall game last night on ESPN.  After review they let the TD stand.

From what I have heard, they ruled that the receiver was forced out of bounds, thus he was not guilty of illegal touching (NCAA rule) or illegal participation (Fed rule).  Same as if the receiver was running along the sideline, was blocked out of bounds and immediately returned.

[Welpe]

Wouldn't the player stepping OOB make the ball OOB by rule, as the ball has touched an object or player OOB? Ergo, incomplete - and nothing else?

At the risk of reopening this ugly can of worms...no.  The player was not out of bounds when he touched the ball.

[GoGoGo]

That is a real ugly can of worms.......

[Welpe]

Yeah I know.    

[Curious]

Wouldn't the player stepping OOB make the ball OOB by rule, as the ball has touched an object or player OOB? Ergo, incomplete - and nothing else?

The original post asked for "HS rules".

Part A; Yes, ball becomes dead. Rule 2-29-3 says: "Any loose ball is OOB when it touches anything, including a player or official, who is OOB".  By touching the pylon while jumping up, then touching the pass before retuning to the ground in bounds, makes his status OOB.

Pat B: Nope.  NOT "nothing else".  As many have said, rule 9-6 is clear and not subject to individual "interpretation".  Illegal Participation!

Now, here's a twist.  What if the receiver returns to the ground in bounds after touching the pylon while airborne, catches the ball, gets blasted just after the catch, and fumbles the ball in B's end zone?  A recovers; or B recovers? Dead ball or live ball? TD? T'back? Incomplete pass?

[hoochycoochy]

The original post asked for "HS rules".

 By touching the pylon while jumping up, then touching the pass before retuning to the ground in bounds, makes his status OOB.

And here's the can of worms.........  he is OOB while he's touching meaning he is actively in contact with what's OOB.  It doesn't say touched it says touching.  Once he's no longer in active contact with what's OOB, he's not OOB anymore.  Redding backs this up and your notion that he has to reestablish himself is not correct. 

[Atlanta Blue]

While I absolutely agree with your technical assessment, the way I would likely handle it is call the pass incomplete, very possibly give an unauthorized OOB wave signal, for clarification, and be prepared to deal with whatever explanations became necessary, although I doubt there would be any adverse report made up the ladder.

That very call cost a crew advancement in the playoffs last year.

A88 runs a sideline route, steps OOB with his right foot, cuts left, catches a pass.  LJ hits the whistle and signals incomplete, and taps the sideline, saying the player went OOB.  Since it happened right on our sideline and was clear as day, we ask why it's not Illegal Participation, and R says A didn't mean to leave the field, he just can't catch a pass anymore.

Report and tape went to state, crew was done for the rest of the playoffs.

SHOULD that be the rule?  I think so.  But it's not.

Call the rules you have, don't make up ones to replace those you don't like.

[Curious]

And here's the can of worms......... Once he's no longer in active contact with what's OOB, he's not OOB anymore.  Redding backs this up and your notion that he has to reestablish himself is not correct. 

So Redding is saying he's "inbounds" because he's he's not "out of bounds"? (Are we back to the play discussed here last year where the pass receiver goes out of bounds, is thrown a pass, and when he jumps into the air, bats the pass to his teammate in bounds)?

This can't be the spirit or intent of the rule; but, IF you're right, because the rule itself is silent on "limbo-land", it MIGHT address the live/dead ball issue.  But it doesn't change the IP ruling.

What do you other "Redding disciples" say about this?

[Welpe]

So Redding is saying he's "inbounds" because he's he's not "out of bounds"? (Are we back to the play discussed here last year where the pass receiver goes out of bounds, is thrown a pass, and when he jumps into the air, bats the pass to his teammate in bounds)?

This can't be the spirit or intent of the rule; but, IF you're right, because the rule itself is silent on "limbo-land", it MIGHT address the live/dead ball issue.  But it doesn't change the IP ruling.

What do you other "Redding disciples" say about this?

I can't believe I'm going here yet again.

The rule is quite clear:

2-29-1

ART. 1 . . . A player or other person is out of bounds when any part of the
person is touching anything, other than another player or game official that is on
or outside the sideline or end line.

Notice the present tense "is touching".

I fail to see how the spirit or intent of the rule could be different from what is very clearly written.

[Curious]

I can't believe I'm going here yet again.

I fail to see how the spirit or intent of the rule could be different from what is very clearly written.

So don't "go here"!

I didn't realize you were the official apologist/authority for/on Redding.  I heard you and I have researched the rule; but I asked for other thoughts/input - if you don't mind......

[Welpe]

So don't "go here"!

I didn't realize you were the official apologist/authority for/on Redding.  I heard you and I have researched the rule; but I asked for other thoughts/input - if you don't mind......

And just where did I claim to be an apologist or authority for Redding?

Perhaps you should have clarified you did not want anybody to actually quote the rule.  Please carry on and excuse my intrusion.

[hoochycoochy]

So Redding is saying he's "inbounds" because he's he's not "out of bounds"? (Are we back to the play discussed here last year where the pass receiver goes out of bounds, is thrown a pass, and when he jumps into the air, bats the pass to his teammate in bounds)?

This can't be the spirit or intent of the rule; but, IF you're right, because the rule itself is silent on "limbo-land", it MIGHT address the live/dead ball issue.  But it doesn't change the IP ruling.

What do you other "Redding disciples" say about this?

There's a technical difference here.  There is no definition for "inbounds".  There is a definition for OOB.  A player is OOB when he's touching something OOB, when he's not touching something OOB then he's not OOB!    

IIRC, Redding says the player who touches OOB and leaps and bats the pass only commits IP if he "returns", otherwise the bat of the pass and reception and score stand.  I couldn't find it tonight but I think that's what it says. 

The thing that sucks is that a player who kicks over the pylon has technically committed IP if he returns to the field.  The pylons are what, 4" x 4"?  Out of all the sidelines that he could jump over and not touch anything, he has to touch that little 4x4 area to foul and does just that.  It's like winning the lottery in reverse. 

[Curious]

There's a technical difference here.  There is no definition for "inbounds".

This (no "in bounds" definition) is the essence of my concern.  I cannot believe the rulesmakers anticipated - then ignored the possibility - that some coach/offensive coordinator might dial up such a play to gain an (unfair) advantage (they are creative SOBs though).  I'm not suggesting that anyone ignore the current interpretation; just that we, as an officiating body, should question why, given these situations, the rule is allowed to remain silent.       

IIRC, Redding says the player who touches OOB and leaps and bats the pass only commits IP if he "returns", otherwise the bat of the pass and reception and score stand.  I couldn't find it tonight but I think that's what it says.

I think your recollection about the interpretation is correct; but if you were a coach against whose team this play was "pulled", how would you NOT consider it unethical at best? 

[color=blackThe thing that sucks is that a player who kicks over the pylon has technically committed IP if he returns to the field. 

[/color][/color]

The thing that "sucks" for me is that his position is not defined when he's in the air. I have no problem with IP (but maybe illegal touching would be more appropriate).

Finally, if WE don't question standing intepretations, or suggest better rule wording, who will?  " 'Cuz someone says so" means we can't make an alternate argument?[/color]

Thanks for your comments.