IP rule change needed?

[SouthGARef]

Had a wide receiver accidentally step out of bounds, re-enter, and make a catch last week. 15 yards from previous spot. Now it's 2nd and 25. It's basically a drive killer.

Considering all of the other 15 yard penalties are mostly safety fouls, doesn't 15 yards for this seem out of place? Shouldn't we consider re-working this rule to a penalty that's not so punitive?

[Atlanta Blue]

Agree completely.

[JKinGA29]

Don't think you're going to find much opposition on here. I've felt this way for awhile. It doesn't make sense to me that the penalty for a receiver accidentally stepping out of bounds while running a route is the same as offensive pass interference.

[Curious]

 

Had a wide receiver accidentally step out of bounds, re-enter, and make a catch last week. 15 yards from previous spot. Now it's 2nd and 25. It's basically a drive killer.

Considering all of the other 15 yard penalties are mostly safety fouls, doesn't 15 yards for this seem out of place? Shouldn't we consider re-working this rule to a penalty that's not so punitive?

While I agree that the punishment doesn't fit the crime and that the foul is enforced from the previous spot (loose ball play), one could infer, from your wording, that there is a loss of down here. The original down was not specified; so I trust the pass occurred on 2nd down - NO LOD.

[VALJ]

That punishment doesn't fit the crime.  I have a hard time seeing the Fed add a 5-yard IP foul, though.  For an accidental step out of boulds, I wouldn't mind (what I think is) the NFL rule - if an A player steps out of bounds and is the first to touch the pass, consider it incomplete - no yardage lost, the down counts, just like an incomplete pass. 

Now, if we determine that someone's trying to gain an unfair advantage, stick them with the 15.

[AlUpstateNY]

That punishment doesn't fit the crime. 

Now, if we determine that someone's trying to gain an unfair advantage, stick them with the 15.

Life would be a lot simpler, and more logical, if we considered a player OOB once he touched OOB (without being forced (pushed)) and any subsequent contact with the ball would be considered OOB.

IP seems more like stretching a different rule to fit a situation that could otherwise be easily, and logically, clarified.

[SouthGARef]

While I agree that the punishment doesn't fit the crime and that the foul is enforced from the previous spot (loose ball play), one could infer, from your wording, that there is a loss of down here. The original down was not specified; so I trust the pass occurred on 2nd down - NO LOD.

Rest assured that it was 2nd and 10 to start the play.

[Welpe]

Life would be a lot simpler, and more logical, if we considered a player OOB once he touched OOB (without being forced (pushed)) and any subsequent contact with the ball would be considered OOB.

IP seems more like stretching a different rule to fit a situation that could otherwise be easily, and logically, clarified.

That would be one way to change it but I'm not sure the best.

I like the NCAA rule much more. It's only an issue if he is the first to touch the pass. The problem with that with Fed is that: 1) Illegal touching in Fed is a loss of down, 5 yards and loss of down is still too much for this and 2) It's a Fed fundamental that a player cannot lose edibility during the down. That would have to change.

I'd be in favor of relegating IP to only when a non-player enters and participates during the down and for players moving to participate to play when losing their helmet. 15 yards for anything else is too severe IMO.

[wvoref]

That would be one way to change it but I'm not sure the best.

I like the NCAA rule much more. It's only an issue if he is the first to touch the pass. The problem with that with Fed is that: 1) Illegal touching in Fed is a loss of down, 5 yards and loss of down is still too much for this and 2) It's a Fed fundamental that a player cannot lose edibility during the down. That would have to change.

I'd be in favor of relegating IP to only when a non-player enters and participates during the down and for players moving to participate to play when losing their helmet. 15 yards for anything else is too severe IMO.

First I have been asking for a change in this rule to something like the NCAA rule for about 20 years but never could get any traction. Second point I never knew player EDIBILITY was covered in the rule book don't you just love autocorrect.

[Welpe]

Haha that's a heck of typo.

[Ralph Damren]

Adopting the NCAA rule has been on the docket before but never made it out of committee. As I recall, it's detraction was that it could be covered with a 7 man crew and 2 sets of eyes on the receiver but coverage by a 4 or 5 man crew would be challenging.

[VALJ]

And a 4 or 5 man crew can cover IP better when Speedy gets his tippy-toe over the line before stepping back towards the QB to catch the ball?