Pylon intentionally knocked out of the play

[dammitbobby]

Putting this in general, as I believe NCAA/NHFS/other codes treat would treat this the same.

Pylons.  Watched a play this weekend while working chains on Saturday where it looked like the defender intentionally kicked over the pylon as the runner was approaching, knowing that it was going to be a close play to the sideline/goal line/pylon.  Knowing that the pylon is out of bounds, but also part of the end zone, and that it is a tool (best word I can think of) for helping us determine in or out of bounds, TD or no TD, is this just a small advantage B picks up, or do we assume that the pylon is still there, and make a judgement call as to whether or not he would have touched the pylon, had it actually been there (phantom pylon)?

[ElvisLives]

I wouldn't do the phantom thing, but I'd consider calling a 9-2-3-c UNS on the defender. While not totally negligible, the width of the pylon isn't so much that we can always positively rule that the player/ball would not have penetrated the goal line between the sidelines if he passes out of bounds right at the pylon. We should be able to judge whether, or not, the BC/ball passed over/through the pylon. But, as a worst case scenario, 1/G for the team in possession at the 3" line (following enforcement of the penalty) is usually an acceptable outcome.

[Ralph Damren]

If you ruled intent, you could rule IP as B intentionally went OOB (kicking the pylon)and returned to action. Action at/near the goal line is usually hot & heavy and a kid (NFHS) bumping into something and kicking it away may be unscrewing the pepper shaker in search of fly poop.

 

[dammitbobby]

If you ruled intent, you could rule IP as B intentionally went OOB (kicking the pylon)and returned to action. Action at/near the goal line is usually hot & heavy and a kid (NFHS) bumping into something and kicking it away may be unscrewing the pepper shaker in search of fly poop.

 

It was one of those situations that when you see it, you snapshot it to process it because it definitely didn't look right, it wasn't just knocked over in the course of play. Probably one of the those once-in-a-career things that I would ever think they did that on purpose like that.

[bossman72]

If indeed intentional, I would just give any benefit of the doubt to the runner if he reaches for where the pylon used to be.  No foul and just a stern talking to.