Author Topic: Touching of a live ball by a player who not inbounds  (Read 6106 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 3960
  • FAN REACTION: +177/-151
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Touching of a live ball by a player who not inbounds
« on: September 26, 2024, 02:15:47 PM »
Got a minute?

The differences seem to never end between NCAA and other rule sets. So let's talk about this item, that is also under discussion in another forum, because those working both sets, or who may want to move into NCAA football, will understand this correctly for NCAA.

Firstly, let's understand that a player is either inbounds or out of bounds. There is no "in between," even for an airborne player. To put it simply, while airborne, a player is where he was when he left the ground, even if his entire body is on one side or the other of a boundary line while airborne.
Secondly, all it takes is the slightest contact with a boundary line to make a player out of bounds, whether that contact is forced, intentional, or accidental. A player may re-establish himself inbounds, but that requires him to be in contact with the ground inbounds, with no part of his body touching anything out of bounds.
I have heard people say that if he just barely touches a boundary line, especially if very briefly, they will not consider him as having gone OB. THAT IS A HUGE DISSERVICE TO THE GAME, and such rulings won't stand the light of video review at the NCAA level. The playing field is 160' wide, and 360' long. Not 160'-1/8" wide. Not 360'-1/4" long. The players are expected to play within those boundaries (at ground level). The white lines are out of bounds. Period. End of story. To allow even the slightest violation to go un-called cheats the opponent out of their rule given expectation that both teams must play within those boundaries.

A player who is out of bounds is ineligible to touch a legal forward pass, even if he returns inbounds, UNLESS he was blocked out of bounds and returns inbounds "immediately."
A player who is blocked out of bounds (and even the slightest amount of contact with an opponent counts as a 'block,' for this rule) may restore his eligibility by re-establishing himself inbounds 'immediately,' which really means as soon as he is physically able. He may have to get to his feet after having been knocked down, or catch his balance, etc. But, as soon as he is able, he must return inbounds, or he loses his status as an eligible receiver, even if he does, thereafter, return inbounds.

A player who is out of bounds does not commit any foul by touching a player who is inbounds, or by touching the ball (loose, or in player possession). However, if he touches a live loose ball, the ball becomes dead, by virtue of the fact that it has touched something out of bounds. If a player who is out of bounds touches, or is touched by, a ball carrier, the ball remains alive.
An example is when a Team B player who is out of bounds consciously reaches back inbounds and touches a legally kicked ball during a free kick down. If that ball was previously untouched by Team B, then his touching constitutes an illegal kick out of bounds by Team A (like it or not). He does not commit any sort of foul for touching the ball.

During legal kick downs (free kicks or scrimmage kicks that cross the neutral zone), a Team A player that goes out of bounds commits a foul for an "illegal return" if he returns inbounds during the kick play portion of the down, UNLESS he was blocked out of bounds (with the exact same criteria for returning inbounds legally as discussed above). However, if he does return inbounds (other than after having been blocked OB and returning inbounds immediately), the only foul he commits is for returning inbounds. Once he returns inbounds, legally or illegally, he is not restricted as to what he may do, such as touching the ball, blocking an opponent, tackling a ball carrier etc., any more than any other player. He is still bound by rules governing illegal touching of the ball, and by blocking rules, etc., just like all of his teammates.
As an example, during a legal kick down, A88 runs out of bounds through his own team area, avoiding contact with an opponent, then returns inbounds and tackles kick receiver B22 after a very short return of the ball. The tackle is 100% legal. However, A88 returned inbounds illegally, so that foul can either cause a repeat of the down after a 5-yard penalty at the previous spot, or it may be added the spot where the dead-ball belongs to Team B.

Mechanically, ANY time we see an eligible receiver of Team A go out of bounds during a scrimmage down, or any player of Team A go out of bounds during a free kick or scrimmage kick play (remember the difference between a 'play' and a 'down'), the covering official is to drop his/her hat. The spot where the player goes OB is unimportant, so, just get your hat down in a way that everyone sees it, and it will present itself on video. That tells the whole world that we saw the player out of bounds. So, if we have to rule "Illegal Touching" of a legal forward pass by such a player, we at least have video evidence of the fact that we observed the player OB, with our hat as proof. Or, if we rule a legal touch/catch by such a player, because he was blocked out and returned immediately, we have video proof with the hat down.

Finally, in NCAA football, there is no such thing as "illegal participation." (Yes, there was, many years ago. But that went away a long time ago. No such thing in NCAA football.) So, take that out of your vocabulary.

There's probably more, but that's enough for now.





 

Offline dammitbobby

  • *
  • Posts: 1432
  • FAN REACTION: +33/-9
  • I know just enough to be dangerous...
Re: Touching of a live ball by a player who not inbounds
« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2024, 09:03:22 AM »
I appreciate you taking the time to write this up, it is informative and helpful for guys like me who read everything in the search for knowledge which makes it more likely for us to 'cross the streams.'

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 2202
  • FAN REACTION: +304/-26
Re: Touching of a live ball by a player who not inbounds
« Reply #2 on: September 30, 2024, 09:05:59 AM »
Quote
Mechanically, ANY time we see an eligible receiver of Team A go out of bounds during a scrimmage down, or any player of Team A go out of bounds during a free kick or scrimmage kick play (remember the difference between a 'play' and a 'down'), the covering official is to drop his/her hat. The spot where the player goes OB is unimportant, so, just get your hat down in a way that everyone sees it, and it will present itself on video. That tells the whole world that we saw the player out of bounds. So, if we have to rule "Illegal Touching" of a legal forward pass by such a player, we at least have video evidence of the fact that we observed the player OB, with our hat as proof. Or, if we rule a legal touch/catch by such a player, because he was blocked out and returned immediately, we have video proof with the hat down.

This is the dumbest mechanic that we have, IMO.  It's incredibly pointless.
The argument for it has always been "well, it shows you're looking at what you're supposed to be looking at".  So, if I have a receiver blocking down field for OPI, but the pass is caught behind the LOS, should I drop my hat to show that I saw it?

My whole issue is that it really doesn't communicate anything since we do it for both a force out and non-force out situation.  I think it would be a good mechanic if we dropped it for only a force out.  That way if a receiver near the sideline catches a pass, we can communicate that he's ok due to force out with our hat being off.  If he wasn't forced out, we'd communicate that he isn't ok with our flag on the ground.  For those of us in replay games, this communicates to replay that there was a force out so they know whether they can get involved or not too.

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 3960
  • FAN REACTION: +177/-151
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Touching of a live ball by a player who not inbound
« Reply #3 on: September 30, 2024, 10:03:14 AM »
In my day, if we didn’t get a hat down, we caught flak from our coordinators (Anderson, Blackwood, Austin, Rivera). Those guys are not around any more, but the mechanics haven’t changed. Do as your coordinator tells you. But, I like having proof that I saw what I saw, so, after the down, when I am reporting an ILT or Illegal Return foul, I can deflect the complaints more easily. You know, like, “Aw, you’re just making s—t up now. You didn’t see him go out of bounds.” Yeah, I did. See my hat over there, DW? That went on my game report, and never got criticized.
It may seem unnecessary, but it doesn’t hurt a thing, and serves to support your work.

Offline Morningrise

  • *
  • Posts: 601
  • FAN REACTION: +24/-8
Re: Touching of a live ball by a player who not inbounds
« Reply #4 on: September 30, 2024, 12:06:50 PM »
A player who is out of bounds is ineligible to touch a legal forward pass, even if he returns inbounds, UNLESS he was blocked out of bounds and returns inbounds "immediately."

I saw a conference quiz question this spring that blew my mind. I looked up the rules and concluded that the answer was technically correct by the letter of the rule - but it's not how I've ever heard any supervisor or clinician or meeting presenter characterize the rule, it's not how any official I know would officiate the play, and I'd be shocked if it was what the rules committee actually wanted us to do.

The play: End A88 goes downfield. B22 contacts him and forces him out of bounds. A88 immediately returns inbounds and then jumps for a legal forward pass. B22 prevents him from catching the pass by making early contact / not playing the ball / arm bar.

The surprising ruling: No foul for DPI.

The justification:

7-3-3-d says "An eligible player loses their eligibility when the player goes out of bounds." It is not followed by any "Exception:" for players who got blocked OOB and returned immediately. Instead, that exception is found in 7-3-4, which is the rule prohibiting ineligible players from touching the pass. That rule makes touching the pass a foul with a loss-of-down penalty "Except" that there is no foul when the ineligible player was forced OOB and returned immediately.

So it's not accurate to say going OOB makes you ineligible "EXCEPT" if you got forced out - instead, going OOB makes you ineligible, PERIOD, but it's a foul if you touch/catch the pass "EXCEPT" that's legal if you got forced out.

So, A88 is perfectly entitled to catch the ball, but technically his eligible status is gone, and you can't have DPI against an ineligible receiver, so B22's actions are legal as long as he doesn't also commit DH or IBB.

Like I said, I was shocked that a preseason quiz would make this claim and that a precise parsing of the rules would seem to back that up. And I still don't believe that CFO or any supervisor actually expects or intends us to call it that way. I just found it remarkable.

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 3960
  • FAN REACTION: +177/-151
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Touching of a live ball by a player who not inbounds
« Reply #5 on: September 30, 2024, 01:30:51 PM »
I saw a conference quiz question this spring that blew my mind. I looked up the rules and concluded that the answer was technically correct by the letter of the rule - but it's not how I've ever heard any supervisor or clinician or meeting presenter characterize the rule, it's not how any official I know would officiate the play, and I'd be shocked if it was what the rules committee actually wanted us to do.

The play: End A88 goes downfield. B22 contacts him and forces him out of bounds. A88 immediately returns inbounds and then jumps for a legal forward pass. B22 prevents him from catching the pass by making early contact / not playing the ball / arm bar.

The surprising ruling: No foul for DPI.

The justification:

7-3-3-d says "An eligible player loses their eligibility when the player goes out of bounds." It is not followed by any "Exception:" for players who got blocked OOB and returned immediately. Instead, that exception is found in 7-3-4, which is the rule prohibiting ineligible players from touching the pass. That rule makes touching the pass a foul with a loss-of-down penalty "Except" that there is no foul when the ineligible player was forced OOB and returned immediately.

So it's not accurate to say going OOB makes you ineligible "EXCEPT" if you got forced out - instead, going OOB makes you ineligible, PERIOD, but it's a foul if you touch/catch the pass "EXCEPT" that's legal if you got forced out.

So, A88 is perfectly entitled to catch the ball, but technically his eligible status is gone, and you can't have DPI against an ineligible receiver, so B22's actions are legal as long as he doesn't also commit DH or IBB.

Like I said, I was shocked that a preseason quiz would make this claim and that a precise parsing of the rules would seem to back that up. And I still don't believe that CFO or any supervisor actually expects or intends us to call it that way. I just found it remarkable.

That's totally nonsensical. What is Team A eligibility? To be allowed to touch a legal forward pass before it has been touched by Team B. 7-3-4 clearly provides an Exception for an originally eligible player who returns inbounds immediately, after going OB by contact with an opponent. He retains his eligibility, or his eligibility is restored, however you want to look at it. And PI rules prohibit Team B from committing PI fouls against an 'eligible' player of Team A. If the "early contact/not playing the ball/arm bar occurred before A88 returns inbounds, no foul. But, by your description, he had returned inbounds before B22's contact.

I would ask a favor. Please send me that quiz (in it's entirety, if possible). I will pursue this further. Feel free to redact any info identifying the specific conference, if that concerns you.
Thank you.

Robert Cameron
Lubbock, Texas
rckcameron@suddenlink.net

Offline Morningrise

  • *
  • Posts: 601
  • FAN REACTION: +24/-8
Re: Touching of a live ball by a player who not inbounds
« Reply #6 on: September 30, 2024, 02:56:49 PM »
I found it, but I misremembered the part about A88 returning inbounds. The actual question has him jumping from OOB to "catch" the pass - obviously the result of the play is an incomplete pass then. (also the actual question has B22 committing holding as well, but the answer makes clear that holding is the only foul)

Does that change anything? You and the quiz answer both say that there's no foul for DPI when the victim is OOB. I wasn't aware of that and I can't find a rule or AR for that, but if that's the case, then I suppose technically the quiz's answer is correct. Either way, though, I was surprised by the quiz's explanation:

Quote
A 3/12 A-20. A88 runs a pattern near the sideline. Before the ball is thrown, B22 pushed A88 OOB at the A-32. While OOB, A88 tries to return inbounds, but B22 grabs and restricts him. A88 breaks free and jumps from OOB, catches the ball airborne and returns inbound and is down at the A-30.

A 1/10 A-30. Result of the play is an incomplete pass (7-3-7-a). No DPI as A88 became ineligible when he was OOB (7-3-3-d). Although DPI does not apply to an ineligible receiver OOB, holding does (9-3-4-d). Defensive holding carries and automatic 1st down.

If it's true that B22 can shove a receiver OOB and then commit DPI-actions while he's trying to return inbounds, then it's true that DH is the only foul. But the quiz also says there's "No DPI as" - which I take to mean 'because' - "A88 became ineligible when he was OOB".

As I said originally, that doesn't comport with anyone's understanding of the rule, which is that A88 DIDN'T become ineligible when he was forced OOB. But the quiz answer cites 7-3-3-d which, as I pointed out, doesn't actually say "except when forced out."
« Last Edit: September 30, 2024, 02:59:01 PM by Morningrise »

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 3960
  • FAN REACTION: +177/-151
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Touching of a live ball by a player who not inbounds
« Reply #7 on: September 30, 2024, 03:45:03 PM »
I found it, but I misremembered the part about A88 returning inbounds. The actual question has him jumping from OOB to "catch" the pass - obviously the result of the play is an incomplete pass then. (also the actual question has B22 committing holding as well, but the answer makes clear that holding is the only foul)

Does that change anything? You and the quiz answer both say that there's no foul for DPI when the victim is OOB. I wasn't aware of that and I can't find a rule or AR for that, but if that's the case, then I suppose technically the quiz's answer is correct. Either way, though, I was surprised by the quiz's explanation:

If it's true that B22 can shove a receiver OOB and then commit DPI-actions while he's trying to return inbounds, then it's true that DH is the only foul. But the quiz also says there's "No DPI as" - which I take to mean 'because' - "A88 became ineligible when he was OOB".

As I said originally, that doesn't comport with anyone's understanding of the rule, which is that A88 DIDN'T become ineligible when he was forced OOB. But the quiz answer cites 7-3-3-d which, as I pointed out, doesn't actually say "except when forced out."

As Emily Litella would say, "Well, that's very different."

When, and while, an originally eligible receiver is out of bounds, he is ineligible, regardless of how he got there. As such (or because of that fact), pass interference rules do not apply to him. Holding rules DO apply to him. We don't really care about illegal touching until he comes back inbounds, because, while he is out of bounds (including airborne after having jumped from out of bounds), if he touches the ball, the ball is simply dead (incomplete pass).

If he was out of bounds without contact from an opponent, or he fails to return inbounds 'immediately' after having gone OB due to contact by an opponent, but then does, in fact, return inbounds, he may not touch a legal forward pass until it has been touched by a player of Team B or an official, and he is NOT subject to DPI rules (but he is, of course, subject to OPI rules).

If he was out of bounds due to contact from an opponent, then he may be able to restore his eligibility, if he returns inbounds 'immediately.'  If he is able to return inbounds immediately, then his eligibility is restored, and not only may he touch a legal forward pass before Team B, but he is fully subject to pass interference rules (DPI and OPI).

If I ever get an opportunity to influence Shaw, I will ask him to edit 7-3-8-a to say, "During a down in which a legal forward pass crosses the neutral zone, illegal contact by Team A and Team B players on inbounds opponents is prohibited from the time the ball is snapped until it is touched by any player or an official."
That will "...fix the glitch," as Bob would say.

(Two movie/TV show references in there. Bonus points to anybody that can name both movie/show titles.)

Offline JasonTX

  • *
  • Posts: 2961
  • FAN REACTION: +112/-58
Re: Touching of a live ball by a player who not inbounds
« Reply #8 on: September 30, 2024, 05:10:21 PM »
As Emily Litella would say, "Well, that's very different."


That will "...fix the glitch," as Bob would say.

(Two movie/TV show references in there. Bonus points to anybody that can name both movie/show titles.)

Office Space and the Muppet Show?

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 3960
  • FAN REACTION: +177/-151
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Touching of a live ball by a player who not inbounds
« Reply #9 on: September 30, 2024, 08:54:44 PM »
Office Space and the Muppet Show?

1 outta 2 ain’t…..right! 😁
If nobody else gets ‘em both before 11:30 am Tuesday, I’ll name the movie/TV show.

Offline Birddog

  • *
  • Posts: 198
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-2
Re: Touching of a live ball by a player who not inbounds
« Reply #10 on: September 30, 2024, 10:00:20 PM »
Saturday Night Live aka SNL, Gilda Radner character, and the Bobs in Office Space

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 3960
  • FAN REACTION: +177/-151
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Touching of a live ball by a player who not inbounds
« Reply #11 on: September 30, 2024, 10:48:59 PM »
Saturday Night Live aka SNL, Gilda Radner character, and the Bobs in Office Space

Ding, ding, ding!!!! We have a winner!
Glad there are some office Space fans out there. Yeah, that would be great.

Offline Morningrise

  • *
  • Posts: 601
  • FAN REACTION: +24/-8
Re: Touching of a live ball by a player who not inbounds
« Reply #12 on: October 01, 2024, 08:35:30 AM »
How about if the rules stated that every Team A player becomes ineligible when they go OOB, and that there are two ways to regain eligibility: By having Team B or the umpire touch the ball, or by returning inbounds immediately provided you were an eligible receiver who was forced OOB.

Then there'd be no semantic ambiguity about whether A88 stays eligible, loses and regains eligibility, or loses eligibility and remains in a weird "ineligible-but-may-legally-touch" state

And it would clarify that B22 can do DPI-actions against A88 while he's OOB but not once he comes back in