Illegal Participation

[bama_stripes]

IMHO, K could decline R's IP foul and by MAINE'S interp , award the ball to R at their 5.

I really feel like there should be a yardage penalty, because of the possibility this could happen on an onside kick.  I wouldn’t want to award the ball to R at the 50, for instance.

[ncwingman]

I really feel like there should be a yardage penalty, because of the possibility this could happen on an onside kick.  I wouldn’t want to award the ball to R at the 50, for instance.

If K is attempting an onside kick, and R intentionally does this -- I feel K will enforce the IP foul from the previous spot and retry the kick. That's still an option, right? Case Play 9.6.2 C covers this pretty directly.

[bossman72]

The video shows an obvious case of IP.  The kick was never going OOB on its own, and K doesn’t deserve to be penalized for doing nothing wrong.  R’s ball at the 2.5.

(edited to correct typo)

Wouldn't we offset with KOB foul?

[CalhounLJ]

IMHO very slippery slope here.  B-25 is rushing to beat A-30 to a loose free kick near the side line and as he approaches the sideline, slips and is just OB as he reaches out and drags the ball with him OB.  That's by your definition "intentional".  I'll stick to the standard dictionary definition of intentional for my calls on this type of play thanks.

It's not my interpretation, it's the NFHS's interpretation. In the casebook.

9.6.2 SITUATION A: A2 is running a pass pattern in the end zone and touches the end line or beyond and leaps and taps A1’s legal forward pass to A3 in the end zone who catches that pass. A2 then lands inbounds following the tap of the ball. RULING: Incomplete pass. A2 is considered out of bounds until any body part is touching inbounds while no body part touches out of bounds.

In addition, if A2 went out of bounds voluntarily, he is guilty of illegal participation. (2-29-1, 7-5-4)

Let me give you another scenario that I believe reinforces my position:
A82 is running a go route down the sideline. He loses track of where he is, and drifts over into the restricted area, so he's running down the field out of bounds. A12 throws him a pass, which is overthrown and intercepted by B23. As B23 makes his way up the sideline on the return, A82, still out of bounds, reaches into the field of play, and tackles B23. Is that legal? Or has A82 influenced the play, even though he "accidentally" went out of bounds?

[bama_stripes]

If K is attempting an onside kick, and R intentionally does this -- I feel K will enforce the IP foul from the previous spot and retry the kick. That's still an option, right? Case Play 9.6.2 C covers this pretty directly.

Yes it does, as far as it goes.  It doesn’t address whether this is still ruled a KOB by K (with offsetting penalties).  I’m of the opinion that if the kick was never going to go OOB on its own, we shouldn’t punish K by forcing them to rekick.

[CalhounLJ]

I started this thread and everyone gets knotted up with judging intent. Just watch this youtube vid (https:/ www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6_r46ekgKU) at the 1:10 mark and make a call. Like I said the SC interpreter says R's ball with an IP foul penalized half the distance from the 5. Ralph and I said either decline or take the IP from the previous spot. Demetriou of Reddings fame says Free Kick OB foul and IP double foul rekick. Can we agree on one of these enforcements?

I vote for option 3.
9-6-2 for the IP, and 2-29-3 for the KOB.

[lawdog]

I started this thread and everyone gets knotted up with judging intent. Just watch this youtube vid (https:/ www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6_r46ekgKU) at the 1:10 mark and make a call. Like I said the SC interpreter says R's ball with an IP foul penalized half the distance from the 5. Ralph and I said either decline or take the IP from the previous spot. Demetriou of Reddings fame says Free Kick OB foul and IP double foul rekick. Can we agree on one of these enforcements?

I'd prefer "None of the Above".  Treat it as R touching inbounds and going oob dead at the spot.  I don't feel it needs to be penalized, But K should not be penalized for sure because the kick is in the field of play.  No way I"m flagging K. So best case is just dead there.  My 2nd choice from the options up there is the SC route I guess.  Regardless we want to avoid re-kicks as much as possible.  That's a horrible result.

[Ralph Damren]

At our NFHS Rules Committee meeting Steve Shaw ,a NCAA rules guru spoke. He stressed the importance of keeping our rules code simple and work the game as such. I've always felt more confort in a game with few flags. That being said, I would : "nothing to see here, folks. Ball belongs to R where R touched it when OOB." IMHO, proving R knew that part of his body  was/had been touching OOB is an issue we don't need to have.

[CalhounLJ]

At our NFHS Rules Committee meeting Steve Shaw ,a NCAA rules guru spoke. He stressed the importance of keeping our rules code simple and work the game as such. I've always felt more confort in a game with few flags. That being said, I would : "nothing to see here, folks. Ball belongs to R where R touched it when OOB." IMHO, proving R knew that part of his body  was/had been touching OOB is an issue we don't need to have.

I'm perfectly fine with that interpretation. Common sense and practical. Do you think you can make it happen?

[Ralph Damren]

I'm perfectly fine with that interpretation. Common sense and practical. Do you think you can make it happen?

I am making it happen in Maine and have been since the rule change in 2001. I was told by several members on the Rules Committee that it was an acceptable interp.

[CalhounLJ]

I am making it happen in Maine and have been since the rule change in 2001. I was told by several members on the Rules Committee that it was an acceptable interp.

Maybe I'm too nitpicky, but shouldn't the rules be adjusted to make that interpretation acceptable?

[Ralph Damren]

Maybe I'm too nitpicky, but shouldn't the rules be adjusted to make that interpretation acceptable?

Nope, 'nitpicky' is what this forum is all about. I'm trying to get the rule more definitive, but hae been using the following interpretation:

In 2001 we changed 6-1-9 from "A free kick shall not be kicked out of bounds LAST touched by K" ...TO..." A free kick shall not be kicked out of bounds between the goal lines UNTOUCHED INBOUNDS by R."

6-1-10 reads :" If a free kick goes out of bounds between the goal line TOUCHED INBOUNDS by R, the ball is put in play by R at the inbounds spot."

Where we know that a player touching a loose ball in the field of play while being OOB causes the ball to be OOB. (2-29-3). In my opinion, the kick had not gone OOB by rule until touched by OOB R. Therefore R caused the ball to become OOB and has the ball at that the spot it became dead. Someday our rules book may give it better support. While still inbounds, the ball being touched by OOB R, IMHO, R caused it to be dead.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Doesn't the simple judgement of intentional vs not intentional cover this without trying to get into the nits?  And the term repeatedly used in the rules is intentionally (vs the opposite which is accidently).  And the word "voluntarily" simply does not appear in the rulebook.  And wouldn't case play 9.6.2 situation A be more consistent if it used the rule word "intentionally" and not "voluntarily"?

[CalhounLJ]

Doesn't the simple judgement of intentional vs not intentional cover this without trying to get into the nits?  And the term repeatedly used in the rules is intentionally (vs the opposite which is accidently).  And the word "voluntarily" simply does not appear in the rulebook.  And wouldn't case play 9.6.2 situation A be more consistent if it used the rule word "intentionally" and not "voluntarily"?

Except using "accidentally" as the opposite of "intentionally" doesn't work, because in application they are synonymous.  In the case plays, it doesn't matter if the player makes a concerted effort to go out and then back in, or "accidentally" steps on the line and comes back in. Either way, he's guilty of IP when he comes back in. Compare that with being forced out by the defense. That's the only way he gets a free pass.
Therefore, "forced out" is the opposite of "intentionally." (Which should be "voluntarily." If you define voluntarily as under his own power."

As to the question about 9.6.2 Sit A, No, that would not make it more consistent, for the reasons I stated above. In 9.6.2 sit A., it doesn't matter if the runner willfully made a decision to go out of bounds, or whether he "accidentally" went out of bounds. If he influences the play while out of bounds, and hasn't been forced out by the defense, then he's guilty of IP.

Basically, there are two reasons a player goes out of bounds; (1) He's forced out by the defense. (2) Unforced by the defense. If he's forced out he's good, if not, he better not come back in or influence the play..

[CalhounLJ]

Nope, 'nitpicky' is what this forum is all about. I'm trying to get the rule more definitive, but hae been using the following interpretation:

In 2001 we changed 6-1-9 from "A free kick shall not be kicked out of bounds LAST touched by K" ...TO..." A free kick shall not be kicked out of bounds between the goal lines UNTOUCHED INBOUNDS by R."

6-1-10 reads :" If a free kick goes out of bounds between the goal line TOUCHED INBOUNDS by R, the ball is put in play by R at the inbounds spot."

Where we know that a player touching a loose ball in the field of play while being OOB causes the ball to be OOB. (2-29-3). In my opinion, the kick had not gone OOB by rule until touched by OOB R. Therefore R caused the ball to become OOB and has the ball at that the spot it became dead. Someday our rules book may give it better support. While still inbounds, the ball being touched by OOB R, IMHO, R caused it to be dead.

Ok, I'm tracking you now. By far, it's the most commonsense approach.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Except using "accidentally" as the opposite of "intentionally" doesn't work, because in application they are synonymous.  In the case plays, it doesn't matter if the player makes a concerted effort to go out and then back in, or "accidentally" steps on the line and comes back in. Either way, he's guilty of IP when he comes back in. Compare that with being forced out by the defense. That's the only way he gets a free pass.
Therefore, "forced out" is the opposite of "intentionally." (Which should be "voluntarily." If you define voluntarily as under his own power."

As to the question about 9.6.2 Sit A, No, that would not make it more consistent, for the reasons I stated above. In 9.6.2 sit A., it doesn't matter if the runner willfully made a decision to go out of bounds, or whether he "accidentally" went out of bounds. If he influences the play while out of bounds, and hasn't been forced out by the defense, then he's guilty of IP.

Basically, there are two reasons a player goes out of bounds; (1) He's forced out by the defense. (2) Unforced by the defense. If he's forced out he's good, if not, he better not come back in or influence the play..

Then we'll simply agree to disagree here since we've been instructed that those terms are in fact not synonymous and if they were then every receiver whose foot just touches OB as he goes airborne to attempt to catch a high pass along a boundary line would be guilty of IP.  That view IMHO borders on the absurd.  And further in every game that I have been involved with that is simply an INC pass as the receiver is OB.  IMHO that is massively different then a player intentionally going OB and touching a free kick or tapping a pass back into play. 

[CalhounLJ]

Then we'll simply agree to disagree here since we've been instructed that those terms are in fact not synonymous and if they were then every receiver whose foot just touches OB as he goes airborne to attempt to catch a high pass along a boundary line would be guilty of IP.  That view IMHO borders on the absurd.  And further in every game that I have been involved with that is simply an INC pass as the receiver is OB.  IMHO that is massively different then a player intentionally going OB and touching a free kick or tapping a pass back into play.

Understand. It may be absurd, but that's the rule and the interpretation in the casebook. If you choose to ignore it, that's your choice. Now, I'm in agreement that IP is too harsh of a penalty in that, and most other situations. If a player running a route plants his foot to make a cut, and accidentally steps on the sideline while doing so, IP is way too harsh for that mistake. But it's still the rule...

[NVFOA_Ump]

Understand. It may be absurd, but that's the rule and the interpretation in the casebook. If you choose to ignore it, that's your choice. Now, I'm in agreement that IP is too harsh of a penalty in that, and most other situations. If a player running a route plants his foot to make a cut, and accidentally steps on the sideline while doing so, IP is way too harsh for that mistake. But it's still the rule...

I'm not choosing to ignore it but our guidance from above has clearly stated that this type of play is not to be called IP, simply INC pass.  Also, IMHO if NFHS really wants this to be IP it's really simple to state that fact in the rules and they have repeatedly declined to do so.

[CalhounLJ]

I'm not choosing to ignore it but our guidance from above has clearly stated that this type of play is not to be called IP, simply INC pass.  Also, IMHO if NFHS really wants this to be IP it's really simple to state that fact in the rules and they have repeatedly declined to do so.

I guess I'm missing something. What do you mean by "guidance from above?" In your state? Or the NFHS? because the only official guidance from the Fed is the rule book and case plays. And they clearly indicate that an accidental step out and return is to be called IP, as well as going OOB unforced and then influencing the play.

Take 9-6-1
ART. 1 . . . 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.

"Unless blocked out of bounds by an opponent." Doesn't matter if he goes out on purpose, or by accident, if he goes out unforced by an opponent and returns, it's IP. Crystal clear.

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.
Same thing here. True, the term intentionally can be read as "on purpose with the intent" to do those things, but the case plays do not support that idea, specifically the first two:
9.6.2 SITUATION A: A2 is running a pass pattern in the end zone and touches the end line or beyond and leaps and taps A1’s legal forward pass to A3 in the end zone and lands inbounds following the tap of the ball. RULING: Incomplete pass. A2 is considered out of bounds until any body part is touching inbounds while no body part touches out of bounds. In addition, if A2 went out of bounds voluntarily, he is guilty of illegal participation.
*This situation says nothing about having to judge whether A2 intended to influence the play in this manner, or even whether he knew he was oob or not. All it asks us to judge is whether he was forced out or not.

SAME WAY IN THE SECOND SITUATION
  9.6.2 SITUATION B: Linebacker B1 runs out of bounds while the ball is live. As runner A2 advances past B1, B1 reaches inbounds and tackles A2. RULING: Illegal participation as B1 remains out of bounds until any body part is touching inbounds, and no body part is touching out of bounds. (2-29-1)
*Notice that how B1 got out of bounds is not the issue here. It doesn't say he "intentionally" ran out of bounds with the intention of influencing this play. It only says that he did so voluntarily, under his own power. Then, while out of bounds, he influenced the play. That's what makes it IP.

We don't have to read a player's mind to make the call.

I will agree that 9.6.2 Situation C does present a situation when a player deliberately goes out of bounds to take advantage of a rule, and/or to manipulate a play situation to his advantage. That deliberate act should also be penalized as IP under the current rules. But it's not the exclusive situation, either.