Illegal Participation

[HeadAlphaGeek]

We are having discussions about 9-6-1 and 9-6-2.

Scenario 1
QB12 behind the LOS being pursued toward the sideline, throws a deep pass downfield.  B42 runs around B44 OOB to get to A88 for the tackle.

Scenario 2
QB12 behind the LOS being pursued toward the sideline, throws a deep pass downfield.  B42 intercepts the ball.  QB12 runs OOB and then comes back in to tackle B44.

The question we are having is 9-6-1 talks about A or K not being able to go OOB before or no change of possession. Does that in turn make it legal for B to go OOB before or no change of possession?

And for 9-6-2.  If we have a change of possession, does that mean 9-6-2 kicks in and no player should go OOB. 

Do we read 9-6-1 and 9-6-2 together or does each rule stand alone?

[HLinNC]

Read them separately.

9-6-1) A or K can not go out of bounds on their own accord and return, period, save for after a change of possession.   
9-6-2) NO player can INTENTIONALLY go OOB and return.

9-6-1 places an added burden on A and K by preventing them from accidentally going OOB and returning, unless after change of possession.  Any player can return if forced out by an opponent's block.  B and R can accidentally go OOB and return.

In Scenario 1- does B42 intentionally go OOB and return?  If so, its a foul.  If not intentional, no foul.
In Scenario 2- Does A12 intentionally go OOB and return?  If so its a violation of 9-6-2.  If not intentional, then A12 can return after the change of possession as per 9-6-1.  If before the change of possession but not intentional, it would violate 9-6-1.

[bossman72]

Good summary by HLinNC.

If you feel he is going OOB to avoid blockers or camouflage himself in the team area, then call him for IP.

[HeadAlphaGeek]

Thanks for clearing it up.

I never once thought about A or K accidentally going out of bounds.  I was too focused on intentionally going out of bounds.  I couldn't figure out why they had 9-6-1 in there when 9-6-2 is all inclusive stating any player. 

[HLinNC]

Sometimes the "wordiness" of rules inhibit us a bit from understanding the intent.  One of the reasons I like the Reddings' Guide.