Out of bounds changes, touching and batting

[ljudge]

Here's a case play put out by CFO:

Receiver A88 is running near the sideline. He steps out of bounds on his own, leaps to receive a forward pass, grasps the ball while airborne, and lands inbounds with the ball in his possession.

RULING: Incomplete forward pass. By rule A88 was still out of bounds when he touched the pass, since he had not established inbounds after having been out of bounds, so the 2 ball is out of bounds when he touches it. This is not a foul for illegal touching, since A88 did not touch the ball in the field of play (Rule 7-3-4).

Based on this then what happens if he bats the ball and it gets into the hands of a defender who intercepts?  I'm guessing an incomplete pass to be consistent and we cannot award B the ball.  Next question is what about batting?  He's still technically ineligible and only eligible players can bat a pass.  So if he bats is it a incomplete pass due to the touching out of bounds (you have to have a touch in order to have a bat) and still have a foul for an illegal bat?

[Kalle]

Remember that touching always preceedes batting. Thus, when the ball is batted by a player out of bounds, it is touched out of bounds before being batted. Thus it becomes dead before the bat. In theory you could rule delay of game, but I doubt any supervisor would want that.

[ljudge]

I knew I could count on you, Kalle.  Makes perfect sense.  Thanks!

[Kalle]

If you're having a problem with the new rule, change the problematic play situation to one where the airborne player is standing out of bounds. It probably makes it a lot easier to figure out.

[justaLJ]

From the recent play situations bulletin:

"An originally eligible pass receiver loses his eligibility when he goes out of bounds, either on his own or due to contact with an opponent."

And play #2:
Pass Interference or Not?
2. End A88 goes out of bounds. As he leaps from out of bounds in an attempt to catch a pass, defender B44 jumps into A88 and knocks the ball to the ground. RULING: Incomplete pass. This is not defensive pass interference since A88 lost his eligibility when he went out of bounds.

Is the intent here that a forced out receiver loses eligibility, and has to "re-establish" inbounds to regain eligibility for purposes of DPI?

7-3-4 Exception language has not changed (yet).

Seems we have a conflict.  Thoughts?

[Diablo]

From the recent play situations bulletin:

"An originally eligible pass receiver loses his eligibility when he goes out of bounds, either on his own or due to contact with an opponent."

And play #2:
Pass Interference or Not?
2. End A88 goes out of bounds. As he leaps from out of bounds in an attempt to catch a pass, defender B44 jumps into A88 and knocks the ball to the ground. RULING: Incomplete pass. This is not defensive pass interference since A88 lost his eligibility when he went out of bounds.

Is the intent here that a forced out receiver loses eligibility, and has to "re-establish" inbounds to regain eligibility for purposes of DPI?

7-3-4 Exception language has not changed (yet).

Seems we have a conflict.  Thoughts?

I think Dr. Redding is incorrectly equating eligibility with being inbounds.  That's incorrect and misleading.

Eligible/ineligible versus inbounds/out of bounds lead to very different outcomes.  The extent of eligibility of a pass receiver dictates whether his touching the pass is a foul or not.  An eligible receiver touching a pass is a legal act.  Touching of a pass by an ineligible receiver is an illegal act - foul.  In contrast catching a pass by an inbounds or out of bounds player determines whether the pass is complete or incomplete, respectively.

Note, he states the ruling in scenario (b) of play #3 is both "legal play and completed pass", not one or the other.

[Kalle]

2. End A88 goes out of bounds. As he leaps from out of bounds in an attempt to catch a pass, defender B44 jumps into A88 and knocks the ball to the ground. RULING: Incomplete pass. This is not defensive pass interference since A88 lost his eligibility when he went out of bounds.

Is the intent here that a forced out receiver loses eligibility, and has to "re-establish" inbounds to regain eligibility for purposes of DPI?

I don't think so. Note the language "goes out of bounds", not "is forced out of bounds". I read this to mean that A88 voluntarily goes out of bounds, immediately loses eligibility, and DPI is only possible against an eligible receiver.

[Aussie-Zebra]

also a problem with #6

Complete or Incomplete Pass?
6. A86 is legally blocked out of bounds by B18 at Team B’s two-yard line. A86, while attempting an immediate return to the field of play, leaps from out of bounds and is airborne as he receives A16’s legal forward pass. He lands in Team B’s end zone with the ball in his grasp.
RULING: Incomplete pass. A86 did not establish in bounds before touching the pass, and hence he was still out of bounds.

7.3.6 APPROVED RULING:

Completed Pass - ARTICLE 6VI. A86 is legally blocked out of bounds by B18 at Team B’s two-yard line. A86, while attempting an immediate return to the field of play, leaps from out of bounds and is airborne as he receives A16’s legal forward pass. He lands in Team B’s end zone completing the catch.

RULING: Touchdown (Rules 4-1-3-c, 4-2-3-a, 7-3-4 Exception and 8-2-1-b).

[Andrew McCarthy]

also a problem with #6

#6 illustrates the rule change.  The player that leaps from out of bounds is still considered out of bounds until he touches the ground in bounds (without also touching out of bounds).  As soon as an out of bounds player touches a ball not in player possession it becomes dead.

[Aussie-Zebra]

I thought the bulletin was confirming rule changes in the current rulebook (2013-2014) not changing them.

Wouldn't they then edit the online rulebook at Arbiter to reflect this change ?

[Andrew McCarthy]

Wouldn't they then edit the online rulebook at Arbiter to reflect this change ?

I think your expectations for your annual $100 (or higher) donations are too high.