Play Situation... Receiver OOB makes catch

[WCFB]

A12 Steps OOB with his right foot. He then takes one more step with his left foot which is in the field of Play and makes the catch.

Just to clarify when he makes the catch his right foot is not touching OOB. The only foot down is his left foot in the field of play when the pass is caught.

Do we have illegal participation for going OOB and returning and making a play on the football?

[ret66482]

With the Participation being revised this year, it is illegal participation.

ART. 2 . . . No player shall intentionally go out of bounds during the down and:
a. Return to the field;
b. Intentionally touch the ball;
c. Influence the play; or
d. Otherwise participate

[InsideTheStripes]

A12 committed an illegal participation foul simply by returning to the field of play.  Whether or not he make a play on the football is of no consequence.


9.6.1 SITUATION A: With third down and 20 from B’s 40-yard line, A1 accidentally steps out of bounds at B’s 30 while running a sideline pattern. A1 returns inbounds at the 28. Quarterback A2’s forward pass is: (a) overthrown and incomplete; or (b) caught by A1 at B’s 25; or (c) in flight to A1 when B1 contacts him and it falls incomplete. RULING: In (a) and (b), it is illegal participation by A1. In (c), A1’s illegal participation and B1’s interference result in a double foul and replay of the down. COMMENT: When A1 goes out of bounds voluntarily or by accident, or delays his return after being blocked out by an opponent, he commits an illegal participation foul when he returns inbounds. The spot of the foul is where he returns inbounds. (10-2-1)

[InsideTheStripes]

With the Participation being revised this year, it is illegal participation.

ART. 2 . . . No player shall intentionally go out of bounds during the down and:
a. Return to the field;
b. Intentionally touch the ball;
c. Influence the play; or
d. Otherwise participate

While both 9-6-1 and 9-6-2 can be applied to the OP, 9-6-1 is more restrictive and occurs prior to 9-6-2 violations this case.  Rule 9-6-1 reads:

Prior to a change of possession, or when there is no change of possession, no player of A or K shall go out of bounds and return to the field during the down unless blocked out of bounds by an opponent. If a player is blocked out of bounds by an opponent and returns to the field during the down, he shall return at the first opportunity.

The play described by the OP would have been a foul prior to this years changes to 9-6-2.  Rule 9-6-2 is actually less restrictive than the 2010 version of 9-6-2.

[WCFB]

Perfect thank you.

Most of the time when we have a player that goes OOB and returns we normally see a large portion of his body leave the field of play. My situation was A just stepped on the sideline slightly and then made the catch.

Players should have enough awareness to know where they are on the field.

[RickKY]

I would not flag this player for IP in this case.  Intentionally going OOB is a bit different than stepping OOB while running a route along the sideline and accidentally stepping on the boundary line.  Incomplete pass should be the ruling.

I think the IP foul should be reserved for situations such as going OOB to avoid the defender, or to gain an advantage in route running.

[losthog]

I would not flag this player for IP in this case.  Intentionally going OOB is a bit different than stepping OOB while running a route along the sideline and accidentally stepping on the boundary line.  Incomplete pass should be the ruling.

I think the IP foul should be reserved for situations such as going OOB to avoid the defender, or to gain an advantage in route running.

I like this philosophy...

[InsideTheStripes]

I would not flag this player for IP in this case.  Intentionally going OOB is a bit different than stepping OOB while running a route along the sideline and accidentally stepping on the boundary line.  Incomplete pass should be the ruling.

I think the IP foul should be reserved for situations such as going OOB to avoid the defender, or to gain an advantage in route running.

I completely agree. 

The question wasn't "what should you do", though; it was "what do you have".  By rule (and case play), you have IP.  If I'm officiating this play, I'm with you.  I'm signalling incomplete and letting the receiver know he stepped out and needs to be more careful in the future.

[RickKY]

I completely agree. 

The question wasn't "what should you do", though; it was "what do you have".  By rule (and case play), you have IP.  If I'm officiating this play, I'm with you.  I'm signalling incomplete and letting the receiver know he stepped out and needs to be more careful in the future.

My point is we do not have IP because stepping on the line was not intentional.  It was not caused by the defender or you have another foul, but it was not intentional, therfore not IP.

[Atlanta Blue]

My point is we do not have IP because stepping on the line was not intentional.  It was not caused by the defender or you have another foul, but it was not intentional, therfore not IP.

The NFHS disagrees with you, and simply calling this an incomplete pass is making up rules.

While I LIKE the rule you are making up, there is NO support for it.  I have proposed making the exact change you have suggested, and have been shot down in Georgia.

If a player is not forced out by the defense, he has intentionally gone out of bounds.  It was HIS fault, not the fault of the defense.  He gets no break for his own mistake.

Personally, I think calling it a 15 yard penalty is WAY overboard, but unfortunately, that's what it is. 

[InsideTheStripes]

My point is we do not have IP because stepping on the line was not intentional.  It was not caused by the defender or you have another foul, but it was not intentional, therfore not IP.

You're looking at 9-6-2 instead of where you should be looking:  9-6-1. 

Intention has nothing to do with it. 

"Prior to a change of possession, or when there is no change of possession, no player of A or K shall go out of bounds and return to the field during the down unless blocked out of bounds by an opponent".  A went OOB on his own accord despite the fact that the rule says he shall not.  There is no "accidentally" exception.  There was no COP and he wasn't pushed out.  The rule is clear.

The case play for 9.6.1 specifically mentions a receiver that "accidentally" went out of bounds.

The play as described is clearly a foul.  Can advantage/disadvantage principles be applied to this particular foul?  I think so.  It seems as though AB does not.

[mbyron]

Agree with AB and ITS: the applicable rule is 9-6-1, and going OOB and then returning is an IP foul unless the A player was blocked OOB.

Remember: when you flag this, the foul is for returning, not for touching the ball. The spot of the foul is where the player returns, not where he touches the ball.

[RickKY]

This from the case book...

9.6.1 SITUATION A: With third down and 20 from B’s 40-yard line, A1 accidentally
steps out of bounds at B’s 30 while running a sideline pattern. A1 returns
inbounds at the 28. Quarterback A2’s forward pass is: (a) overthrown and incomplete;
or (b) caught by A1 at B’s 25; or (c) in flight to A1 when B1 contacts him
and it falls incomplete. RULING: In (a) and (b), it is illegal participation by A1. In
(c), A1’s illegal participation and B1’s interference result in a double foul and
replay of the down. COMMENT: When A1 goes out of bounds voluntarily or by
accident, or delays his return after being blocked out by an opponent, he commits
an illegal participation foul when he returns inbounds. The spot of the foul
is where he returns inbounds. (10-2-1)

I'll stand corrected on this but I still believe it should not be called IP.  This is similar in nature to the holding call away from the point of attack, or when the opponent does not fight to get separation.  We have holding, but we don't have a foul.  We've set the bar high for holding calls:  big, at the POA and involves restriction.

Since this is a simple "right foot out, left foot in" case, I would simply call the pass incomplete with receiver OOB.  If there was a noticeable delay in returning, or he went further OOB than just a foot on or slightly over the sideline, I would flag for IP.   Use good judgement here.  That's a big penalty for stepping on the line trying to catch a pass while running without looking where you're going.

[AlUpstateNY]

I would not flag this player for IP in this case.  Intentionally going OOB is a bit different than stepping OOB while running a route along the sideline and accidentally stepping on the boundary line.  Incomplete pass should be the ruling.

I think the IP foul should be reserved for situations such as going OOB to avoid the defender, or to gain an advantage in route running.

Sometimes hanging on to every word of a rule, too tightly, can produce boxing yourself into an uncomfortable, and impractical, corner.  "One size fits all" can be very restrictive, at times.  There might be room for a technical argument in RickKY's assessment, if you really want to get precise, but is seems a reasonable alternative that fits the general character of most games.

Sometimes precision turns out not to be all it's cracked up to be, and a practical end does sometimes justify the means.  Maybe that's why a lot of the decisions we make are not always as universally transferrable as some might think they should be.

[Atlanta Blue]

This from the case book...

9.6.1 SITUATION A: With third down and 20 from B’s 40-yard line, A1 accidentally
steps out of bounds at B’s 30 while running a sideline pattern. A1 returns
inbounds at the 28. Quarterback A2’s forward pass is: (a) overthrown and incomplete;
or (b) caught by A1 at B’s 25; or (c) in flight to A1 when B1 contacts him
and it falls incomplete. RULING: In (a) and (b), it is illegal participation by A1. In
(c), A1’s illegal participation and B1’s interference result in a double foul and
replay of the down. COMMENT: When A1 goes out of bounds voluntarily or by
accident, or delays his return after being blocked out by an opponent, he commits
an illegal participation foul when he returns inbounds. The spot of the foul
is where he returns inbounds. (10-2-1)

I'll stand corrected on this but I still believe it should not be called IP.  This is similar in nature to the holding call away from the point of attack, or when the opponent does not fight to get separation.  We have holding, but we don't have a foul.  We've set the bar high for holding calls:  big, at the POA and involves restriction.

Since this is a simple "right foot out, left foot in" case, I would simply call the pass incomplete with receiver OOB.  If there was a noticeable delay in returning, or he went further OOB than just a foot on or slightly over the sideline, I would flag for IP.   Use good judgement here.  That's a big penalty for stepping on the line trying to catch a pass while running without looking where you're going.

If the player still has a foot on the line, sure, call it incomplete.  It is, no problem.

But the problem comes here:  A runs near the sideline and without being forced, clearly steps on the line.  He then cuts back to the numbers and catches a pass 12 yards downfield.  Now what?  You can't call it incomplete, he's nine yards inbounds!

Do you ignore the fact he stepped on the line because it was an "accident"?  Sorry, that's poor officiating.  You KNOW he stepped OOB and came back.

Many fouls aren't advantage/disadvantage.  Defense jumps into the neutral zone before the snap, makes no contact, no one on the offense moves, and the B player is retreating when the ball is snapped.  If anything, the defense is DISADVANTAGED because the player's momentum is now moving backward.  But it doesn't matter, it's a foul in FED.

A lines up with 6 players on the line, and 4 in the backfield.  What advantage do they gain?  None, they are actually DISadvantaged because they only have 10 players on the field.  But it doesn't matter, it's a foul in FED rules.

I don't like the IP rule in this case.  It doesn't differentiate between the player that accidently steps on the line from the one that runs OOB, stays out for 5 yards, and comes back behind some teammates downfield.  Both of these are 15 yard penalties, and that doesn't seem right.  I would be in favor of a rule change that simply makes a player that ACCIDENTLY steps OOB ineligible to catch a pass, making the pass incomplete.

But that's not the rules, and calling it that way isn't "good judgment", it's making up rules.

[john3459]

Please remember the receiver knows where he is going, the defender should not have to cover him outside the field of play no matter how slight. If the receiver had possesion of the ball and "accidentally" stepped on the line you would have blown it dead. I agree that 15 yards is too harsh but it is like others we have to enforce that we don't like. (OPI, Holding behind the LOS)

[ECILLJ]

During our Association's pre-season Rules Interpretation meeting we were told to call it as IP.  I don't like the IP rule for a player who accidentally steps on the line.  Fortunately, I have never seen it happen during a game on my sideline.

[bama_stripes]

During our Association's pre-season Rules Interpretation meeting we were told to call it as IP.  I don't like the IP rule for a player who accidentally steps on the line.  Fortunately, I have never seen it happen during a game on my sideline.

Had it in a HS varsity game 3 weeks ago.

[FBUmp]

Just to clarify when he makes the catch his right foot is not touching OOB. The only foot down is his left foot in the field of play when the pass is caught.

I disagree.  I'm 100% sure his right foot was touching OOB when he touched the pass. Incomplete pass. 

[WCFB]

I disagree.  I'm 100% sure his right foot was touching OOB when he touched the pass. Incomplete pass. 

My OP was not a play that i had, i was a possible play situation. I am not referring to a particular play that actually happened.

I wanted to start a discussion on the topic because IP 15 yards seems harsh, for a player to slightly step OOB with one foot and then make the catch with only his other foot in the field of play when the catch is made.

[Welpe]

Oh goodness, the "is touching" debacle rides again.

[HLinNC]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo........................................

 

[NDref]

Just for my clarification.  If a pass is thrown, we have a loose ball play and the penalty is assessed from the previous spot...line of scrimmage.  If the quarterback is sacked, we have a run play and the 15 yard penalty for IP is assessed from the end of the run.

Correct?

[RickKY]

Just for my clarification.  If a pass is thrown, we have a loose ball play and the penalty is assessed from the previous spot...line of scrimmage.  If the quarterback is sacked, we have a run play and the 15 yard penalty for IP is assessed from the end of the run.

Correct?

This is a live ball, basic spot foul, so correct.

[Wingman]

An official has to have the courage to flag this especially if he ever has aspirations to make to the next level (can you read it's on the film the coach just sent in). The foul there isn't any where near as severe, but it can offset a defensive foul that otherwise would have been penalized as the only foul.

Just as the casebook describes, it can and does happen at the NFHS level.