Illegal Participation revisited with question

[juxone]

I was reviewing a thread from last year on this point which created a question for me.. I preface it with Actually NFHS rule seems clear- .
9-6-1 deals with A & K only regarding leaving the field and returning. Accidentally or intentionally does not matter, all that matters is did he leave with an exception if he was blocked out.

There was also a quote in the thread “In my opinion going OOB intentionally requires intent to leave the field of play to gain an advantage not just stepping on the sidline trying to make a taclke or catching a kick etc.  It is our job as officials to determine if a foul is committed or not on almost every single play of the game.  We all should know what intentional vs accidental is to determine how or why the player went out of bounds and apply the rules.”

Which now leads to the following question:

An Eligible team A receiver #84 while running a route down the sideline and accidentally steps out of bounds before returning to the field of play in an effort to catch a forward pass, but the team B opponent clearly knocks him down before the pass arrives. 

It WOULD seem (by rule), that 84 has participated and clearly, he stepped out of bounds, but then B74 knocks him down before the pass arrives (DPI?) 

has this created a double foul? What is the enforcement, replay the down?

[NVFOA_Ump]

If in your opinion he stepped OB intentionally and you've got a flag when he steps back inbounds then he is no longer an eligible receiver.  You could possibly have UNR if the hit was excessive, but you cannot have DPI.

[juxone]

If in your opinion he stepped OB intentionally and you've got a flag when he steps back inbounds then he is no longer an eligible receiver.  You could possibly have UNR if the hit was excessive, but you cannot have DPI.

so in this case, IF judged he stepped out of bounds, the foul would only be for Ill-legal participation (9-7-2) and the enforcement would be 15 yards from the basic spot? There would be no double foul.  HOWEVER if based on the language in 9-7-2, if it was NOT judged intentional he would remain eligible?

[CalhounLJ]

Be careful on this one, because intentional doesn’t mean what you think it means. It doesn’t mean on purpose. It means of his own accord, as opposed to being forced out.

Read 9.6.1 Situation B in this years book.

As to the question of the double foul, A is still an eligible receiver, because if you’re eligible at the start of the down, you are eligible throughout the down, so B has interfered with an eligible receiver. Double foul. Replay.

[juxone]

Be careful on this one, because intentional doesn’t mean what you think it means. It doesn’t mean on purpose. It means of his own accord, as opposed to being forced out.

Read 9.6.1 Situation B in this years book.

As to the question of the double foul, A is still an eligible receiver, because if you’re eligible at the start of the down, you are eligible throughout the down, so B has interfered with an eligible receiver. Double foul. Replay.

GREAT POINT and much thanks for the clarification on intentional!! Thats why I am on the forum!! I was trying to process the idea of the receiver being ineligible because that very thought "if you’re eligible at the start of the down, you are eligible throughout the down" kept bouncing around in my pea brain!!

[CalhounLJ]

GREAT POINT and much thanks for the clarification on intentional!! Thats why I am on the forum!! I was trying to process the idea of the receiver being ineligible because that very thought "if you’re eligible at the start of the down, you are eligible throughout the down" kept bouncing around in my pea brain!!

Yeah, what you actually have is an eligible receiver participating illegally. So, if he catches the pass, the foul is not illegal touching. It’s IP and it happened when he returned inbounds.

[HLinNC]

when he steps back inbounds then he is no longer an eligible receiver.

Incorrect- 7-5-6d " A player who is eligible at the start of the down remains eligible throughout the down".

[NVFOA_Ump]

Incorrect- 7-5-6d " A player who is eligible at the start of the down remains eligible throughout the down".

Another of those wonderful incongruities of NFHS rules.  He is illegal, but he is also eligible. 

[juxone]

Another of those wonderful incongruities of NFHS rules.  He is illegal, but he is also eligible. 

Yep one of the wonderful incongruities, but makes sense if one keeps in mind HLinNC reminder about eligibility, the previous answer had me trying to reconcile the fact that IF in fact he had become "ineligible" and a pass was thrown to him it would them have become an Illegal forward pass --but how would the QB actually know? but that is why I am here.. to learn or try to understand. 

[Ralph Damren]

'Intent' isn't an issue with A or K stepping OOB (9-4-1) for IP. It is IP for anyone -A,K,B,R - for intentionally going OOB and returning. On occation we mught see a B player sliding after missing tackle and touching OOB, he would be allowed to resume play w/o a flag.