Any difference for A or B "accidentally" stepping on the sideline and returning?

[Fatso]

Looking at illegal participation 9-6-1 and 9-6-2. 
9-6-1 says no player of A or K shall go out of bounds and return to the field unless blocked out of bounds.  ("intentionally" is not mentioned)
9-6-2 says no player shall intentionally go out of bounds then return during the down, etc...

Does this mean B can accidentally step out and return but A cannot?

[Ralph Damren]

Yes,  A/K prevents the ole 'hideout' play and such. We've probably all seen a B player miss at a diving tackle, hit the sidelines, pop back up and continue to play. that souldn't and isn't a foul.

[Fatso]

Yes,  A/K prevents the ole 'hideout' play and such. We've probably all seen a B player miss at a diving tackle, hit the sidelines, pop back up and continue to play. that souldn't and isn't a foul.

TY sir.   

[Ia-Ref]

An accidental touch of the sideline by A should not be illegal participation, 15 yards.
Change the rule.  The penalty does not fit the crime.
I have not called it because I have not seen it, because I don't want to see it.

[ilyazhito]

The NCAA rule for A stepping out of bounds is logical. A player of A who steps out on his own (i.e. is not forced out) cannot legally catch a pass, but is otherwise allowed to keep playing. If he does catch the pass, the penalty is a loss of down from the previous spot.

On a kick play, the penalty for going out and coming in is 5 yards from the previous spot, or a 5-yard penalty from the "spot of the subsequent dead ball" at the option of B.

[Ralph Damren]

The NCAA rule for A stepping out of bounds is logical. A player of A who steps out on his own (i.e. is not forced out) cannot legally catch a pass, but is otherwise allowed to keep playing. If he does catch the pass, the penalty is a loss of down from the previous spot.

On a kick play, the penalty for going out and coming in is 5 yards from the previous spot, or a 5-yard penalty from the "spot of the subsequent dead ball" at the option of B.

We had a simular proposal this year. It made itto the floor for a final vote, had the majority but not the super-majority (2/3) to pass. The wording was quite complex and several (after last year's Rule 10) didn't want to face that again. I voted for it and am sure it'll come up again...in a simpler form.

[VALJ]

We had a simular proposal this year. It made itto the floor for a final vote, had the majority but not the super-majority (2/3) to pass. The wording was quite complex and several (after last year's Rule 10) didn't want to face that again. I voted for it and am sure it'll come up again...in a simpler form.

I know that I'm late to the party on this post, but I have a general question about writing the rules verbiage.  The rule 10 change was intended to imitate the way NCAA does penalty enforcement; why doesn't the committee just "cut and paste" the rule from the college book?  It seems like there have been several changes over the years that are intended to make our enforcement match what the next level up does; since they've already worked out the kinks in wording, why don't we just copy what they say instead of "write a new rule, then year 2 fix the unintended consequences from the way we wrote it, then year 3 fix the unintended consequences from the fix we wrote."

[ElvisLives]

I know that I'm late to the party on this post, but I have a general question about writing the rules verbiage.  The rule 10 change was intended to imitate the way NCAA does penalty enforcement; why doesn't the committee just "cut and paste" the rule from the college book?  It seems like there have been several changes over the years that are intended to make our enforcement match what the next level up does; since they've already worked out the kinks in wording, why don't we just copy what they say instead of "write a new rule, then year 2 fix the unintended consequences from the way we wrote it, then year 3 fix the unintended consequences from the fix we wrote."

What makes you think they’ve worked out the kinks in the wording? 😁 Enforcement that is fair and equitable is very hard to put into language. Lots of ambiguities in the NCAA language, still. But, it is workable, at this point. Emulate, but to avoid copyright issues, I wouldn’t just copy/paste. But, I’m nobody’s boss (outside of my office, but even then, only for about another month 😀).

[VALJ]

What makes you think they’ve worked out the kinks in the wording? 😁 Enforcement that is fair and equitable is very hard to put into language. Lots of ambiguities in the NCAA language, still. But, it is workable, at this point. Emulate, but to avoid copyright issues, I wouldn’t just copy/paste. But, I’m nobody’s boss (outside of my office, but even then, only for about another month 😀).

Well, fair point there...    It just seems like Fed always feels the need to reinvent the wheel, rather than take verbiage that works for the two higher levels and then adjust it as it needs to be adjusted to account for the differences in abilities, maturity, and knowledge that high school kids have. It always seems like it's a three or four year cycle from when the rule change happens to when the rule actually says and does what they want it to say and do in the first place.