The letter of the rule

[Bwest]

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.

Agreed. An NFHS interp that does this is putting something in the book that isn't actually there.

[Roscoe]

I can't help but call IP in this case. If you call it, and you get a phone call from the state, you went by the rule book. If you don't call it, and you get a phone call from the state, you amended the rule book based on your own philosophy. This would not turn out well in your favor.

[Ralph Damren]

To give my case proposal rule support, 2-29-1 would need to be amended to include : "A player or other person is out of bounds when any part of the person is touching OR LAST TOUCHED anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside the sideline or endline." There is no definition of when a player is inbounds, only when out of bounds and while airborne from Planet Earth the player is no longer touching down in OOB ,so via lack of a definition of being inbounds and the player is no longer OOB by rule and would be considered inbounds (as would all cheerleaders as they jump along with huntin' dawgs, excited fans and the like). I feel an incomplete pass is a fairer call in this situation but rule 2-29-1 would need to be tweaked. Can anyone think of a disadvantage of adding "or last touched" as I proposed?

[AlUpstateNY]

Seems like a simple, practical and effective solution, that is long overdue and would satisfy those who find it necessary to need written authorization.

[ECILLJ]

Quite a thread and I hope I never see this play on Friday night. But if I do, here are my thoughts.

1) the touched pylon had better visibly move or I have nothing.

2) If the pylon does visibly move, I am tossing my hat to the pylon. I know this is not at an NFHS mechanic, but I want everyone to know that I saw the player OOB.

3)When he touches the ball I am throwing my flag for IP.

4) When he catches the ball I am indicating incomplete pass.

The A team is going to go nuts on this one, but the rules support the call and again I hope I never see this play on my watch.

[prab]

3)When he touches the ball I am throwing my flag for IP.

I do not believe that it becomes IP until he touches the ground in bounds.  To qualify for IP, the receiver must go out of bounds AND return to the field. 

4) When he catches the ball I am indicating incomplete pass.

Catching includes touching the ground in bounds.  I do not see how you can rule this to be an incomplete pass, unless he is still touching the pylon when he first touches the ball. 

As previously discussed, this problem would go away if the NFHS defined "in bounds". 

[HLinNC]

but the rules support the call

The ones you make up don't count.

[ECILLJ]

HLNC,

You got me. After further review, I agree the pass is not incomplete.

Prab,

You got me too. I will wait until a foot touches the ground before I throw my flag.

[Rulesman]

I will wait until a foot touches the ground before I throw my flag.

SEE...

READ...

THEN REACT.

Patience is a virture that will keep you out of a lot of soup.

[AlUpstateNY]

AMEN and so is basic, common sense.

[Ralph Damren]

  I've been pondering : (1) Why don't we have a definition of being inbounds ? ; (2) How a player running inbounds could step out of bounds, leap up in the air and then land inbounds ? - (a) prevailing gale force wind blowing inbounds; (b) sideline was on the side of a mountain ; (c) an earthquake occurred while player was airborne and the sideline moved ; (d) gravitational pull caused by alien space craft; (e) double-jointed player that has a future in the circus.  Might be easier to find a definition for being inbounds that succeeding the feat in #2  . Almost high noon ,time for a lobster roll and clam broth martini - hope all are enjoying the weekend & Happy Father's Day

[AlUpstateNY]

I've been pondering : (1) Why don't we have a definition of being inbounds ? ; (2) How a player running inbounds could step out of bounds, leap up in the air and then land inbounds ?  hope all are enjoying the weekend & Happy Father's Day

There's always the possibility that the rule makes presumed common sense, the laws of physics and basic logic would outweigh the necessity for trying to create the ridiculous by twisting an interpretation of the verbiage down below the reach of a gnat's eyelash.