B player out of bounds play

[KEH]

Long run by A near the sideline.  A team B player misses the tackle and goes out of bounds in the process.  He then turns and runs along the sideline but still clearly out of bounds for another 5-6 yards before coming back in bounds and participating, along with another B player, in the tackle of the runner.  I'd like to hear some arguments for/against an illegal participation foul on the team B player that went out of bounds.  My initial reaction is that he didn't go OOB intentionally but as part of trying to make the tackle on the runner.  However, the fact that he then ran OOB for 5-6 yards before coming back in bounds is more the issue.

[bama_stripes]

Long run by A near the sideline.  A team B player misses the tackle and goes out of bounds in the process.  He then turns and runs along the sideline but still clearly out of bounds for another 5-6 yards before coming back in bounds and participating, along with another B player, in the tackle of the runner.  I'd like to hear some arguments for/against an illegal participation foul on the team B player that went out of bounds.  My initial reaction is that he didn't go OOB intentionally but as part of trying to make the tackle on the runner.  However, the fact that he then ran OOB for 5-6 yards before coming back in bounds is more the issue.

Sounds to me like you've made your own for/against arguments.

If a B player accidentally steps OOB (as it appears in this play), he can legally return if he does so at his first opportunity.

Now you have to judge whether B fulfilled that requirement.  Did he stumble off-balance for a few strides?  Did players on the field block his path?  Or did he voluntarily delay his return to gain an advantage?

That's why we get the big bucks!

[Curious]

If a B player accidentally steps OOB (as it appears in this play), he can legally return if he does so at his first opportunity.

Hey 'Bama, are you sure?  Rule and CB (9-6 and 9.6 Comment) are actually silent about B.  It looks like only A and K are restricted unless blocked - and then they must return at their first opportunity.

9-6-4a talks about "any player" entering and participating during the down; but that looks like a stretch too.  "Gaining an unfair advantage" (9-4) is questionable as, in this play, after missing the tackle, B probably has to "fight" his way through a crowd to get back into the play.

Just looking for a rule or CB play to address B specifically....   

[Jackhammer]

IN addition cite what you'll have if he runs over the wing on his way to the tackle...

[ppaltice]

The player did not intentionally go out of bounds.  He did not gain an advantage by running 5 yards while OOB to pursue the runner.  No foul.

A team A/K player has to return at the first opportunity because he can gain an advantage if we allow him to get lost in the sidelines or use more than the alloted 40 yard width to allude the defense.

Do not try and justify calling a foul on the team B player.  You are asking for trouble.

[Ump33]

Case Book 9.6.1B is a stretch, because it involves A2 stepping out of bounds after an interception on the 30 and returns inbounds at the 25. Even though A2 was out of bounds for five yards, he is not guilty of Illegal Participation because A2 did not intentionally go out of bounds.

I would apply this ruling to the OP and since B’s missed tackle caused him to go out of bounds, he is not guilty of Illegal Participation.

9.6.1 SITUATION B: Third and 10 from B’s 40-yard line. A1’s forward pass is intercepted by B1 on B’s 20 and returned to midfield. End A2 accidentally steps on the sideline at B’s 30: (a) before, or (b) after the interception. In both cases A2 returns inbounds at B’s 25, but does not make any attempt to catch the ball or tackle B1. RULING: In (a), it is an illegal participation foul at B’s 25 because A2 returned after being out of bounds prior to the interception. No foul in (b) because A2 did not go out of bounds until after the change of possession with the interception by B1

[KEH]

Would it change your perspective if the B player that is OOB punches the ball out of the runner's grasp while the B player was out of bounds?  By definition the runner is not OOB if touched by a player that is OOB but in this case would the OOB player have an advantage in that the runner would not be expecting a defender on that side (since the runner was already hugging the sideline)?

Also, proper mechanics would have the wing trailing this play in 5 man, so I'd say if the B player ran into the wing, then that wing was way too close to the play in the first place.

[Curious]

Would it change your perspective if the B player that is OOB punches the ball out of the runner's grasp while the B player was out of bounds? 

Now THIS is someting I'd like to actually see!

He has to pick himself up, fight through the crowd, find the ball carrier, chase him down, then "punch" the ball out.  I'd say I might be applauding....

If he were diving for the A player, I guess it might be akin to an A player jumping into the air from a position out of bounds and tapping a pass to a teammate inbounds before he hits the ground again OOB.

[ppaltice]

If B is not running some sort of hideout variation, he should not be flagged for Illegal Participation due to intentionally going out of bounds and returning.  This is wording that was put in the NFHS rule set in the 40s for hideout plays.

[Curious]

If B is not running some sort of hideout variation, he should not be flagged for Illegal Participation due to intentionally going out of bounds and returning.  This is wording that was put in the NFHS rule set in the 40s for hideout plays.

Exactly.  That's why the rule only mentions A and K....

(PP, you've been officiating since the 40s!!)