Can an out-of-bounds A player touch a live ball (while he's still OOB).

[Fatso]

Let's say A21 goes OOB and while OOB reaches back into the field of play and touches a live ball (like a pass in flight, or a fumble either in flight or grounded).

What if it's a B player?

[Brian26]

Not 100% sure but I believe it's illegal participation in both

[lawdog]

So the pass is going to the sideline and the receiver tries to catch it but steps on the white first, you want a penalty?  That's a garden variety dead ball incomplete pass.  IP is going out of bounds and then returning.  Don't try to create penalties to throw.  You'll never be any good in this job doing that. 

[Fatso]

So the pass is going to the sideline and the receiver tries to catch it but steps on the white first, you want a penalty?  That's a garden variety dead ball incomplete pass.  IP is going out of bounds and then returning.  Don't try to create penalties to throw.  You'll never be any good in this job doing that.

Who said I want to throw a penalty, or I'm creating a penalty?  Are you always rude or caught you on a bad day?

[Etref]

Let’s be nice!

[ncwingman]

A is illegally participating when he goes out of bounds and returns to the field of play (unless he was blocked out of bounds). If he remains OOB, then this doesn't apply.

Any player (A or B) is illegally participating if they *intentionally* go out of bounds and *intentionally* contact the ball (or a few other things in 9-6-2).

I don't see either case applying here by default. You'd have to rule on intent, which is going to be very case dependent. Without the intent, the ball simply becomes dead when it contacts the player who is out of bounds.

[CalhounLJ]

Let's say A21 goes OOB and while OOB reaches back into the field of play and touches a live ball (like a pass in flight, or a fumble either in flight or grounded).

What if it's a B player?

It's an incomplete pass if it was a forward pass. If it's a fumble, it's the team who was in possession's ball at the spot of the touching.

[retiredumpire]

A is illegally participating when he goes out of bounds and returns to the field of play (unless he was blocked out of bounds). If he remains OOB, then this doesn't apply.

Any player (A or B) is illegally participating if they *intentionally* go out of bounds and *intentionally* contact the ball (or a few other things in 9-6-2).

I don't see either case applying here by default. You'd have to rule on intent, which is going to be very case dependent. Without the intent, the ball simply becomes dead when it contacts the player who is out of bounds.

What if kickoff is rolling along the sidelines, untouched, and R1 notices it will not go OOB by itself, so he plants one foot OOB and touches the ball...penalty on the kicking team for illegal kick OOB? Isn't that "intentional"?

[ncwingman]

What if kickoff is rolling along the sidelines, untouched, and R1 notices it will not go OOB by itself, so he plants one foot OOB and touches the ball...penalty on the kicking team for illegal kick OOB? Isn't that "intentional"?

That is not a penalty for a kick out of bounds, it's a penalty for illegal participation. R's illegal act caused the ball to go out of bounds, they should not be rewarded for that. Yes, I've seen the videos from college and NFL where they do that, but there's a reason why they don't do it anymore.

[GA Umpire]

That is not a penalty for a kick out of bounds, it's a penalty for illegal participation. R's illegal act caused the ball to go out of bounds, they should not be rewarded for that. Yes, I've seen the videos from college and NFL where they do that, but there's a reason why they don't do it anymore.

Please see 6.1.9 Situation C.
It states in (b) that the ruling is the kicking team caused to ball to be oob.
This case play seems to address the issue in the OP.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Please see 6.1.9 Situation C.
It states in (b) that the ruling is the kicking team caused to ball to be oob.
This case play seems to address the issue in the OP.

6.1.9 - C is not on point here and has to do with a free kick muffed by K that then goes OB.

[Fatso]

6.1.9 - C is not on point here and has to do with a free kick muffed by K that then goes OB.

6.1.9-C in the 2024 case book talks about R touching the ball, not K.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I stand corrected.

[Ralph Damren]

In 2000, we tweaked the FKOOB rule to read : "If the receiving team doesn't  touch a free kick BEFORE it goes out of bounds,it is a foul." My interp of that is : If the ball is still inbounds when touched by OOB R, it is dead by rule and R's ball at that spot. I perfer that over IP by R which would requirea re-kick.

[Fatso]

In 2000, we tweaked the FKOOB rule to read : "If the receiving team doesn't  touch a free kick BEFORE it goes out of bounds,it is a foul." My interp of that is : If the ball is still inbounds when touched by OOB R, it is dead by rule and R's ball at that spot. I perfer that over IP by R which would requirea re-kick.

Good morning Ralph.  So during a free kick, the old step out of bounds then touch the ball trick by R isn't a KOB?  I've heard differing opinions on how to handle this scenario.


Here's a Redding snippet:
When a receiving team player who is out of bounds is the first to touch a free kick, the kicking team has caused the ball to go oob. It does not matter if the ball is inside the plane of the sideline when it is touched.
Then there's an example describing the above and ruling is foul by team K for KOB.  Explanation then states - It is not a foul for a team R player to unintentionally go out of bounds.

So is Redding saying it would be a foul on R if he intentionally went OOB then touched the ball?  What rule(s) are in play here?

Thanks

[GA Umpire]

In 2000, we tweaked the FKOOB rule to read : "If the receiving team doesn't  touch a free kick BEFORE it goes out of bounds,it is a foul." My interp of that is : If the ball is still inbounds when touched by OOB R, it is dead by rule and R's ball at that spot. I perfer that over IP by R which would requirea re-kick.

Ralph:
That is what I would want to rule. R's ball at the inbounds spot on the yard line where he touched it while oob.
Can you sponsor that rule change proposal?

[Ralph Damren]

Ralph:
That is what I would want to rule. R's ball at the inbounds spot on the yard line where he touched it while oob.
Can you sponsor that rule change proposal?

I sponsored it last year, but it was tabled in sub-committee. It will be discussed again this year with copies of Case plays and illustrations as back up. Some felt ut was an interpretation and didn't need a rule change.