The letter of the rule

[wvoref]

Have conflicting emotions on the steps on the sideline aspect of IP. Have only ever flagged this once. Was BJ on state final. Two point conversion. Receiver is circling deep in EZ. QB tucks ball and starts to run. WR accidentally steps on end line. At this point had no intention of flagging but QB pulls up short and throws pass to receiver that stepped on end line. Now I throw the flag even though the foul had actually occurred about 2 steps earlier. If QB had run the ball probably never would have thrown the flag. That is the play that makes me advocate for a change to something similar to NCAA rule that would only make it a foul if he's the first to touch a loose ball, and even then make it illegal touching or something similar but not IP and no foul if he doesn't touch loose ball.

[HLinNC]

Facts not in evidence, younggun.  The play in question has the receiver who brushed/nicked/touched the pylon catching the ball well in bounds. 

I've still not seen any evidence on how one sells that as an incomplete pass without looking like a complete dufus or having their state playoff certification yanked when the film gets sent into the state office with the explanation.

[Kalle]

Ralph, do you happen to know what is the reasoning of the NF rules committee to have these kinds of plays (player voluntarily going out of bounds and returning) flagged as IP and not as illegal touching, as in NCAA? As an NCAA official I don't see the point of having a big penalty for a procedural foul like this.

Out of curiosity, is it IP as well if a player goes OOB and returns during a kick?

[younggun]

If team K does yes. Team R can if they do the one foot on sideline and touch the ball play to put ball OOB.

[bossman72]

If we actually call this foul the way it is written, that will give coaches and AD's the motivation to change the rule!

[Ralph Damren]

Ralph, do you happen to know what is the reasoning of the NF rules committee to have these kinds of plays (player voluntarily going out of bounds and returning) flagged as IP and not as illegal touching, as in NCAA? As an NCAA official I don't see the point of having a big penalty for a procedural foul like this.

Out of curiosity, is it IP as well if a player goes OOB and returns during a kick?

I can recall the illegal touching NCAA rule on this being on the docket only once and failed coming out of committee with very little support. Several of us have discussed plays similar to the OP informally and the general feeling is that this differs from a receiver touching the sidelines and continuing his pass pattern = IP. If the receiver touches the sideline / pylon in the act of attempting to catch the pass, the second he touches the ball it becomes dead and incomplete (2-29-1 & 3). Where the receiver then lands is then moot as the ball is now dead....That's my story and I'm sticking to it... ...and perhaps suggest a case play for this .

[younggun]

I can recall the illegal touching NCAA rule on this being on the docket only once and failed coming out of committee with very little support. Several of us have discussed plays similar to the OP informally and the general feeling is that this differs from a receiver touching the sidelines and continuing his pass pattern = IP. If the receiver touches the sideline / pylon in the act of attempting to catch the pass, the second he touches the ball it becomes dead and incomplete (2-29-1 & 3). Where the receiver then lands is then moot as the ball is now dead....That's my story and I'm sticking to it... ...and perhaps suggest a case play for this .

If that happened in a game (ruled incomplete) and the video came across your desk would you support?

[Ralph Damren]

YES 

[wvoref]

Ok here's my proposed rule change to the IP rule as it pertains to this situation. This is the idea behind it not necessarily the proper wording. It is not IP unless both of the players feet are completely OB and he continues to participate. If he steps on the sideline or only one foot steps across sideline it is only a foul if he is first to touch a loose ball, and then the foul would be illegal touching.

[HLinNC]

I wouldn't make it that complicated, wvo.  I'd just call it illegal touching, one foot, two feet, any body part.

Under the NCAA rule, if B were to touch it first, does that absolve A of stepping out of bounds and allow him to catch with no penalty?

[Kalle]

Under the NCAA rule, if B were to touch it first, does that absolve A of stepping out of bounds and allow him to catch with no penalty?

Yes. After team B (or an official) touches the forward pass, all players become eligible, no matter how they became ineligible.

[wvoref]

My reasoning for the 2 feet completely oob equaling IP was to prevent player from going oob intentionally and then retiurning as opposed to the player who accidentally steps on or slightly over sideline and might not even be aware he did it. I figure if you step both feet completely oob you should be aware you did it and know to not return

[Ralph Damren]

Try this for a possible proposed case, guys, and remember catching a forward pass is always preceded by touching a forward pass (2-4-2) :

      *2.4.2 SITUATION : A11 ,while running passing route : (a) steps on 50 as he touches a forward
     pass; or (b) steps on 50 as he begins to leap and touches forward pass while he is in the air; (3)
     steps on 50 and continues to B's 45 where he catches forward pass.   RULING : In (a) and (b) it is
     an incomplete pass (2-29-1,3); in (c) it is illegal participation. The foul occurred when A11 returned
     inbounds. This would be a loose ball play with previous spot enforcement.

Be careful what you wish for. Rules involving one or two feet in bounds, did B touch the ball first? would require the calling official(s) to be watching for more than he currently is. With 7, probably not hard --- with 4 or 5 , probably would be.

[younggun]

Is there a reason why we cant make this type of IP the go OOB and come back in a 5 yard vs. 15 yard a 12th man/all the other types of IP fouls. It just seems like stepping OOB by couple inches is too harsh penalty for that type of IP foul.

[wvoref]

Ralph. In part b of your situation if receiver steps on sideline leaps in air touches pass but muffs it and it is intercepted by B would we instead rule that incomplete. Or would the incomplete ruling only apply if he completed the catch. As you pointed out touching precedes possession. That's one of the reasons I'd kind of like an illegal touching penalty in these cases. That way they would all be treated alike

[Ralph Damren]

Younggun - IMHO, many already find the IP rule confusing as is and making a 5 yarder if A/K only hits sideline but 15 if he took several steps OOB along the sidelines wouild only add to the confusion. WVoref - In B, once the ball is touched by OOB A the ball becomes dead regardless it ends up = incomplete pass.

[Kalle]

If you add the proposed case play, what would be the result of this play?

1/10 at A-30. A89 is running a route close to the sideline and is blocked out of bounds by B30 at A-35. A89 stumbles out of bounds but immediately attempts to return. The QB A12 throws a legal forward pass towards A89 immediately after the contact. A89 leaps from out of bounds, secures the ball in the air and lands inbounds at A-36 where he is is downed by B30.

[Ralph Damren]

If you add the proposed case play, what would be the result of this play?

1/10 at A-30. A89 is running a route close to the sideline and is blocked out of bounds by B30 at A-35. A89 stumbles out of bounds but immediately attempts to return. The QB A12 throws a legal forward pass towards A89 immediately after the contact. A89 leaps from out of bounds, secures the ball in the air and lands inbounds at A-36 where he is is downed by B30.

Good point , Kalle. Where A89 was forced out by B he can return without a foul. If he caught the pass and landed inbounds you have a completion (2-4-1). Your suggestion would make a good "(d)" in my proposed case play.

[Kalle]

Good point , Kalle. Where A89 was forced out by B he can return without a foul. If he caught the pass and landed inbounds you have a completion (2-4-1). Your suggestion would make a good "(d)" in my proposed case play.

So, what you are saying is that the definition of out of bounds depends on whether or not an airborne player last touched the ground out of bounds and how he went out of bounds. Isn't this needlessly complicated?

[Ralph Damren]

So, what you are saying is that the definition of out of bounds depends on whether or not an airborne player last touched the ground out of bounds and how he went out of bounds. Isn't this needlessly complicated?

I've a call in to the author of the 2012 rule change on catch to get his opinion on this. You guys will be the second to know.

[wvoref]

Try this for a possible proposed case, guys, and remember catching a forward pass is always preceded by touching a forward pass (2-4-2) :

      *2.4.2 SITUATION : A11 ,while running passing route : (a) steps on 50 as he touches a forward
     pass; or (b) steps on 50 as he begins to leap and touches forward pass while he is in the air; (3)
     steps on 50 and continues to B's 45 where he catches forward pass.   RULING : In (a) and (b) it is
     an incomplete pass (2-29-1,3); in (c) it is illegal participation. The foul occurred when A11 returned
     inbounds. This would be a loose ball play with previous spot enforcement.

Be careful what you wish for. Rules involving one or two feet in bounds, did B touch the ball first? would require the calling official(s) to be watching for more than he currently is. With 7, probably not hard --- with 4 or 5 , probably would be.

As the current rules are and with your explanation of what happens in part b I like your proposed play situation. The thing I still don't like is that in part c it's an IP whether or not the receiver touches the pass. As currently written its a foul simply because he continues his route after inadvertantly stepping on sideline even if he is unaware he did.

[Ralph Damren]

I've a call in to the author of the 2012 rule change on catch to get his opinion on this. You guys will be the second to know.

After further review by the replay official ( the author of ther rule that outlawed the Oregonian flea-flicker a few years ago) : Kalle's play should be ruled an incomplete pass. There is no foul on A89 for trying to re-enter the field of play as he was forced out, BUT he hadn't re-entered when he left his feet to touch / catch the pass. In simple terms : You are where you were when you took off. In  (b) and now (d) ,you took off from OOB and you can't be inbounds until after you land there.

[Rulesman]

In simple terms : You are where you were when you took off. In  (b) and now (d) ,you took off from OOB and you can't be inbounds until after you land there.

Just like basketball, which some have argued is not the case.

[VALJ]

After further review by the replay official ( the author of ther rule that outlawed the Oregonian flea-flicker a few years ago) : Kalle's play should be ruled an incomplete pass. There is no foul on A89 for trying to re-enter the field of play as he was forced out, BUT he hadn't re-entered when he left his feet to touch / catch the pass. In simple terms : You are where you were when you took off. In  (b) and now (d) ,you took off from OOB and you can't be inbounds until after you land there.

We need to get that in the book somewhere, if that's the general intent.  Remember the discussion about the play where the player went out of bounds beyond the end line, and tipped the pass back into the field of play after he had jumped in the air?

[Magician]

After further review by the replay official ( the author of ther rule that outlawed the Oregonian flea-flicker a few years ago) : Kalle's play should be ruled an incomplete pass. There is no foul on A89 for trying to re-enter the field of play as he was forced out, BUT he hadn't re-entered when he left his feet to touch / catch the pass. In simple terms : You are where you were when you took off. In  (b) and now (d) ,you took off from OOB and you can't be inbounds until after you land there.

He's not in bounds so he hasn't completed IP.  But he's also not out of bounds so the pass is not incomplete either.  The rule change a couple years ago addressed the situation where the player goes out of bounds intentionally and then participates.  But under the current rules this is NOT an incomplete pass.

There seems to be more interest in the NFHS rules committee adopting rules similar to NCAA and this would be a GREAT place to do that.  A players goes out of bounds and is the first to touch the ball it's illegal touching.  He's excused if he was pushed out.  If a B player or official touches it first he's fine.  The penalty is loss of down at the previous spot (essentially an incomplete pass).  This year's NCAA rule change also addresses the player who touches out of bounds and then leaps and touches the ball.  No need to reinvent the wheel on something like this.