The letter of the rule

[Bwest]

I want to hear some other officials thoughts around the following scenario:

A 2/10 @ B30. QB A throws a fade towards the sideline. Receiver A88 jumps from the 1 yard line, catches the ball, and lands with both feet in bounds in the end zone. While he was in the air but before he touches the ball, his foot contacts the pylon.

As I understand it, by a strict following of the rule book we should have a loose ball penalty for illegal participation on this play, 2/25 @ A45.

Is that the interpretation we should go with here? What if the pylon was lying on its side partially in the field of play and the receiver stepped on it?

[Ralph Damren]

"WHEN properly placed, the goal line pylon is out of bounds...", so a pylon laying on it's side partially in the endzone would not be properly placed. If a receiver hit the properly placed pylon on his way up to catch the pass, I would see that the same as hitting the sideline as he began his leap to catch the pass and rule the catch incomplete with no foul.  A QB would be throwing a bomb from behind A's 30 and his receiver would probably need wings to get the 70 yards downfield!! 

[Bwest]

A QB would be throwing a bomb from behind A's 30 and his receiver would probably need wings to get the 70 yards downfield!! 

Whoops, changed to B. And why would you rule the pass incomplete if the receiver lept from out-of-bounds and caught the pass? Assuming he lands in bounds.

[Johnponz]

I concur with Ralph.  The A player went out of bounds when he jumped (by touching the properly placed) pylon.  When he touched the ball, it was out of bounds (by definition). When he returned in bounds the ball was already "dead" and the pass incomplete (because it touched him, the A player) while he was OOB. 

Thus, the player did not commit IP because he never returned in bounds after going out of bounds. The ball was dead and incomplete the second it touched something OOB in this case the A player.

[prab]

I concur with Ralph.  The A player went out of bounds when he jumped (by touching the properly placed) pylon.  When he touched the ball, it was out of bounds (by definition). When he returned in bounds the ball was already "dead" and the pass incomplete (because it touched him, the A player) while he was OOB. 

Thus, the player did not commit IP because he never returned in bounds after going out of bounds. The ball was dead and incomplete the second it touched something OOB in this case the A player.

I can not agree with Johnponz on this one.  The receiver is not out of bounds unless he "is touching anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside the sideline or end line.'   In this play, the receiver touches the pylon, which is out of bounds if properly placed, BUT when he touches the ball (assuming that he is not still in contact with the pylon) he is no longer out of bounds. Since the rule book does not have a definition of "in bounds" the best that can be said about the receiver's location is that he is not "out of bounds".  Therefore, when he is airborne and touches the ball, it is not (by definition) out of bounds and therefore dead and incomplete. 

I think that by strict interpretation of the rule IP is what you have.  I also believe that if you actually call IP you will wish that you hadn't.

I have been chastised before for reading the rules too closely.  I have suggested in the past that the rule be changed to say that the in bounds vs. out of bounds status of an airborne player be changed to say that it is the same as where he last touched the ground or pylon.

[Bwest]

I think that by strict interpretation of the rule IP is what you have.  I also believe that if you actually call IP you will wish that you hadn't.

This is I want to get at and hear some more opinions on. The rules are the rules, but I can't say that if I was in that spot I would be throwing the flag. But I have a hard time reconciling that with the ultimate goal of enforcing the rules fairly.

[Johnponz]

Nit picking the rules is not a good idea.  If this ever happens I would stand by the explanation.  In the real world this is the accepted ruling for the reason that I stated.

[HLinNC]

Accepted where, John?  See case play 9.6.1A

This whole OOB vs in bounds thing has been hashed out here and The Official Forum ad nauseum.  If he isn't touching out of bounds, he is not out of bounds.  You can't rule this an incomplete pass but you can't screw B over and award a score either.

Nit picking rules may be bad form a lot of times but splitting the baby in half on this one isn't going to work.

It is no different than if he grazed the goal post going up in the back of the endzone.  I'm pretty sure that has been an NFHS test question for several years.

[Bwest]

Nit picking the rules is not a good idea.  If this ever happens I would stand by the explanation.  In the real world this is the accepted ruling for the reason that I stated.

Even if we are trying to avoid "nit-picking" I don't think out of bounds is the best resolution.

Take the case of a receiver being pushed (way) out of bounds. Qb then throws the ball. The receiver, returning immediately to the field of play, jumps from out of bounds, catches the ball, and lands inbounds. By your description you would incorrectly rule the pass incomplete when the play is entirely legal.

[Johnponz]

I will agree that the way the Federation rules are currently written this is IP.  I am grateful that the NCAA changed the rule this year so there it is an incomplete pass now. 

[younggun]

Incomplete Pass... nothing else on this play. This play was not what the IP rule was put in place to prevent. Incomplete Pass... no harm done.

[Magician]

Incomplete Pass... nothing else on this play. This play was not what the IP rule was put in place to prevent. Incomplete Pass... no harm done.

The problem with the HS rule is they haven't corrected it to allow you rule support to make this ruling. I'm grateful NCAA has.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[HLinNC]

I would much rather have rule support and a case play when I explain to A's coach why his receiver was flagged for IP rather than some made up BS answer as to why I ruled an obvious catch incomplete.   The proposed alternative kills your credibility as now A's coach knows you will twist the rules to whatever rationale you dream up.

Fed and NCAA have all sorts of different rulings.  If you can't juggle the differences, stick to one day or the other; or move to Texas or Mass.

[Johnponz]

As I said you convinced me I was wrong, but I am still allowed to say that I am glad this was cleared up on the college side.

You are right it is much better to have rules support.  I can make up all kinds of reasons for being wrong, but the bottom line is I would rather be wrong on this board than on Friday night.  The chances of seeing this play are slim, but now I will be sure to get it right.  Isn't that the reason we are here?

[bama_stripes]

It's too bad that we don't have high-tech pylons that magically appear when we need them & disappear when we don't.

From a philosophy standpoint, this should be a TD.  A88 gained no advantage by brushing the pylon.

[wvoref]

I have been advocating for years that the NF adopt something like the NCAA rule for when A players inadvertently step OOB. The IP rule for this is akin to using a sledge hammer to kill a gnat. But unfortunately it never seems to get any traction. As to this scenario I have to agree that unfortunately the only rule support we have is to rule IP.

[Magician]

It's too bad that we don't have high-tech pylons that magically appear when we need them & disappear when we don't.

From a philosophy standpoint, this should be a TD.  A88 gained no advantage by brushing the pylon.

He did gain an advantage by using more than the field of play to complete his route. IP is just too much of a penalty for this offense.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[bama_stripes]

He did gain an advantage by using more than the field of play to complete his route.

I don't see the advantage.  A88 brushed the upright pylon while in the air.  Had the pylon not been there, or gotten knocked over earlier in the play, we'd have the exact same result with no penalty.

[Magician]

I don't see the advantage.  A88 brushed the upright pylon while in the air.  Had the pylon not been there, or gotten knocked over earlier in the play, we'd have the exact same result with no penalty.

Why do you think the rules don't allow A players to go out of bounds and return? By touching the pylon he has gone out of bounds. Too bad for him. It's also why you move the pylons in the middle of the back of the end zone away from the end line. The ones at the goal line have to be there though. This is pretty black and white. Just because we think IP is a bad penalty doesn't mean we can ignore it. Make this an incomplete pass and it's less of an issue.

[ALStripes17]

Why do you think the rules don't allow A players to go out of bounds and return? By touching the pylon he has gone out of bounds. Too bad for him. It's also why you move the pylons in the middle of the back of the end zone away from the end line. The ones at the goal line have to be there though. This is pretty black and white. Just because we think IP is a bad penalty doesn't mean we can ignore it. Make this an incomplete pass and it's less of an issue.

I'm with my Bama brother on this one.  I'm understanding this play to say that the receiver was in bounds for the entire play and the topic of discussion is the receiver jumping and kicking/brushing the pylon sitting in the corner of the endzone during his jump. 

No advantage anywhere here. This also tells me if a receiver runs a hard out close to the goalline, dives, hits the top of the pylon with his arms as he catches the ball, and gets both feet down 5 feet in bounds, then it's ruled incomplete or IP bc he nicked the top of the footlong pylon?

Please...

[VALJ]

By rule, ALStripes, if his arm touches the pylon before one of those feet gets down, that's exactly what it's telling you.  I agree that the punishment doesn't fit the crime here since no advantage was gained, and I'd much rather simply call that an incomplete pass than an IP foul, but until the NFHS powers that be decide to listen to us and change that rule, that's what we've got.

[younggun]

As officials we are there to manage the game. There are numerous times when we ignore rules because of their intent is not meant for the given situation. How many of you are going to throw a flag on Team B when the Team A punter is doing a rugby style kick and Gets hit by the Team B player right after he kicks the ball away. Team B thought he was going to run with it, but by rule this is a foul. If a coach's sideline is the best darn sideline I have ever seen players and coaches are back off the white all the time, and all the coach does is take one step out on to the field to give play to QB then he gets back are you going to flag that 'by rule' too? If Team B DB lines up in the NZ to press on a WR initialy, then he looks in toward the ball and backs up some, are you going to flag that? and Bottom line is we are sent out to the field to manage the game. That is why it is important to not only learn rules, mechanics but also learn philosophies of the rules.

[Bwest]

As officials we are there to manage the game. There are numerous times when we ignore rules because of their intent is not meant for the given situation. How many of you are going to throw a flag on Team B when the Team A punter is doing a rugby style kick and Gets hit by the Team B player right after he kicks the ball away. Team B thought he was going to run with it, but by rule this is a foul. If a coach's sideline is the best darn sideline I have ever seen players and coaches are back off the white all the time, and all the coach does is take one step out on to the field to give play to QB then he gets back are you going to flag that 'by rule' too? If Team B DB lines up in the NZ to press on a WR initialy, then he looks in toward the ball and backs up some, are you going to flag that? and Bottom line is we are sent out to the field to manage the game. That is why it is important to not only learn rules, mechanics but also learn philosophies of the rules.

So which rule are you going to throw out in this situation? Will you ignore the rule that states the pylon is out of bounds, and thus award a touchdown? Or do you ignore the rule that a player is inbounds unless he is touching out of bounds, and call the pass incomplete?

Also apologies to HLinNC if this topic is beating a dead horse.

[younggun]

I'm going to do what ever I have to do to manage the game. If the score is 45-0 deep in the 4th and the team loosing catches the ball I am going to rule TD. The the score is tied 14-14 last play of the game I am going to rule incomplete. Team A does not deserved the TD nor the foul and get an extra shot at a TD. I am not going to rule TD and give the Team A a TD. So by going by the IP rule are you going to throw a flag on a WR that goes OOB unintentionally (like one foot OOB on one step) and comes back in on the sideline opposite of where the QB was looking the whole play? Like I said we are out there getting paid the big bucks to manage the game and in this case that is what we are doing.

[Rulesman]

Managing the game and flagrantly ignoring the rules because your personal philosophy doesn't match the book are not the same thing.