Punt play redux

[xkath]

This situation was posted in the NCAA room. What would the ruling be in NF in 2011?

Ball punted about Team K 45 yard line. Ball is headed for the pylon, no team R player around. The ball bounces at about the 5 yard line about a yard inbounds and appears to be heading into the end zone. K85 standing out of bounds (went out on his own) bats the ball backward into the field of play and teammate K80 falls on the ball at the 8 yard line. Ruling?

[Ump33]

I have not seen the 2011 Rule Book. But based on the statement from the 2011 Rule Changes issued 2/14/11, I believe this would be Illegal Participation.

"The illegal participation rule including a player who intentionally goes out of bounds and, while out of bounds, affects the play, touches the ball or otherwise participates."

[LarryW60]

I agree, K85 directly affected the play while standing out of bounds.  Illegal Participation.  The ball became dead as soon as he touched it, so where K80 fell on it is moot.

[xkath]

If the player is OOB, by rule the loose ball is also OOB when it touches a player, official or anything that is OOB (2-29-3). Wouldn't this kill the ball immediately? So why would it be illegal participation?

The caseplay that led to the rule change, I hear, was a receiver who steps on the end line on his own, jumps up and while airborne bats the pass to a teammate. Last year, this did not violate the IP because he never returned from being OOB.

[Mike L]

If the player is OOB, by rule the loose ball is also OOB when it touches a player, official or anything that is OOB (2-29-3). Wouldn't this kill the ball immediately? So why would it be illegal participation?

ILLEGAL PARTICIPATION REVISED (9-6-2): With this change, the rule regarding illegal
participation now has been extended to apply to a player who intentionally goes out of
bounds and, while out of bounds, affects the play, touches the ball or otherwise participates.

[Bob M.]

ILLEGAL PARTICIPATION REVISED (9-6-2): With this change, the rule regarding illegal
participation now has been extended to apply to a player who intentionally goes out of
bounds and, while out of bounds, affects the play, touches the ball or otherwise participates.

REPLY: I like the new rule and it's a great start. But what about the A/K player who inadvertently steps out of bounds and does the same thing? Has he not put B/R at the same disadvantage as the player who intentionally stepped out? Should there be a distinction? Consider the play that xkath cited. The player intentionally steps on the endline, leaps, and taps the ball to a teammate in B's endzone.==> Illegal Participation. Now same player inadvertently steps on endline, leaps, and taps it to a teammate in the endzone ==> Touchdown. Does that make any sense?

That aside, the new rule has a problem in the wording. Note that it says "...and while out of bounds..." I know there are some out there who will bristle at this, but.......once he leaps, he's no longer out of bounds. Probably would have been better had they said "...and before returning inbounds..."

[Atlanta Blue]

REPLY: I like the new rule and it's a great start. But what about the A/K player who inadvertently steps out of bounds and does the same thing? Has he not put B/R at the same disadvantage as the player who intentionally stepped out? Should there be a distinction? Consider the play that xkath cited. The player intentionally steps on the endline, leaps, and taps the ball to a teammate in B's endzone.==> Illegal Participation. Now same player inadvertently steps on endline, leaps, and taps it to a teammate in the endzone ==> Touchdown. Does that make any sense?

Doesn't "intentional" mean on his own, that is, not being pushed by the defense?  If so, then there is no such thing as "inadvertent" touching of the sideline.  The A player was either pushed out by the defense, or he left the field "intentionally".

That aside, the new rule has a problem in the wording. Note that it says "...and while out of bounds..." I know there are some out there who will bristle at this, but.......once he leaps, he's no longer out of bounds. Probably would have been better had they said "...and before returning inbounds..."

The RULE doesn't have those words in it.  Only the poorly written explanation has that phrase still in it.  The rule (and the accompanying case play) clearly spell out that once he goes out of bounds, he cannot return, nor can he influence the play.

9-6-2: No player shall intentionally go out of bounds during the down and:
a. Return to the field;
b. Intentionally touch the ball;
c. Influence the play; or
d. Otherwise participate.

*9.6.2 SITUATION A: Eligible receiver A1 runs beyond Team B’s end line.
Quarterback A2 throws a legal forward pass in A1’s direction. A1 leaps and, while
airborne, bats the ball to eligible teammate A3, who is in Team B’s end zone. RULING:
Illegal participation on A1. Because A1 went out of bounds intentionally and
influenced the play, he has gained an advantage and illegal participation.

[AlUpstateNY]

Haven't received the 2011 books yet so I've not seen the 2011 language.  I'm assuming what you provided is the new language, and if so, it addresses this silly argument, hopefully forever.  Thank you for posting the actual language used.

[Mike L]

REPLY: I like the new rule and it's a great start. But what about the A/K player who inadvertently steps out of bounds and does the same thing? Has he not put B/R at the same disadvantage as the player who intentionally stepped out? Should there be a distinction? Consider the play that xkath cited. The player intentionally steps on the endline, leaps, and taps the ball to a teammate in B's endzone.==> Illegal Participation. Now same player inadvertently steps on endline, leaps, and taps it to a teammate in the endzone ==> Touchdown. Does that make any sense?

That aside, the new rule has a problem in the wording. Note that it says "...and while out of bounds..." I know there are some out there who will bristle at this, but.......once he leaps, he's no longer out of bounds. Probably would have been better had they said "...and before returning inbounds..."

It would've been nice if they either eliminated the word "intentionally" and simply included an exception for the player being forced out by an opponent (so he's either out or excepted due to opponent action) or ruled some distinction between "intentional" and "inadvertant" because I think the use of "intentional" just opens the rule up to this type of interpretation "problem".
But, at this point I can only assume what they want is there is no distinction. A & K Players are responsible for keeping themselves in bounds unless an opponent forces them out....period. B & R players we have to read intention.

[HLinNC]

Reddings, which arrived today BTW, states- "A player may not intentionally go out of bounds AND intentionally touch the ball, subsequently return to the field, influence the play OR otherwise participate."

"Example- A81 intentionally runs to a position one yard beyond the end line and stops.  A7 throws a forward pass intended for A81.  As the ball nears the end line, A81 leaps into the air, bats the ball to A22 and lands out of bounds.  A22 catches the ball in the end zone.  RULING: A81 is guilty of illegal participation.  A81 touched the ball after intentionally going out of bounds."

"Example- B55 intentionally runs out of bounds while the ball is live and (a) leaps and knocks down a pass intended for A82, who is near the sideline, or (b)
tackles runner A24, who is running down the sideline.  RULING: In either case, B1 is guilty of illegal participation.  In (a), B1 touched the ball after intentionally going out of bounds. In (b) B1 returned to the field.

[Mike L]

Reddings, which arrived today BTW, states- "A player may not intentionally go out of bounds AND intentionally touch the ball, subsequently return to the field, influence the play OR otherwise participate."

"Example- A81 intentionally runs to a position one yard beyond the end line and stops.  A7 throws a forward pass intended for A81.  As the ball nears the end line, A81 leaps into the air, bats the ball to A22 and lands out of bounds.  A22 catches the ball in the end zone.  RULING: A81 is guilty of illegal participation.  A81 touched the ball after intentionally going out of bounds."

"Example- B55 intentionally runs out of bounds while the ball is live and (a) leaps and knocks down a pass intended for A82, who is near the sideline, or (b)
tackles runner A24, who is running down the sideline.  RULING: In either case, B1 is guilty of illegal participation.  In (a), B1 touched the ball after intentionally going out of bounds. In (b) B1 returned to the field.

Nice of them to give examples of the obvious.

[xkath]

They'll need to reword or reinterpret this new IP rule to reconcile with the definition of when the ball is OOB at 2-29-3: "A loose ball is out of bounds when it touches anything, including a player or game official that is out of bounds."

The new caseplay talks about an OOB player who has leaped into the air to bat a pass. This was what the rulesmakers had in mind for the new IP rule. My punt play redux, however, has a player standing OOB when he bats a kick. By rule, it's dead at the touching. How can there be IP on a ball that is dead? I don't think they can circumvent a fundamental such as this.

[Mike L]

They'll need to reword or reinterpret this new IP rule to reconcile with the definition of when the ball is OOB at 2-29-3: "A loose ball is out of bounds when it touches anything, including a player or game official that is out of bounds."

The new caseplay talks about an OOB player who has leaped into the air to bat a pass. This was what the rulesmakers had in mind for the new IP rule. My punt play redux, however, has a player standing OOB when he bats a kick. By rule, it's dead at the touching. How can there be IP on a ball that is dead? I don't think they can circumvent a fundamental such as this.

It certainly appears what they've decided is that once a player intentionally goes OOB he can no longer in any way participate in or effect the play. It does not matter if he comes back in or stays out or is bouncing up and down like on a pogo stick. But I also think it remains the covering official is going to have to make a call in regard to advantage gained. If he feels the action by the player affected the play, and for your original post it certainly seems like it did, then it's IP. If he feels the touch pretty much puts the ball where it would've gone OOB anyway, then you probably have a good time to hold onto that flag since there has been no advantage gained.
I wish they had left that "touches the ball" part out. I think we as officials are quite capable of determining if he "affected the play or otherwise participates".

[LarryW60]

They'll need to reword or reinterpret this new IP rule to reconcile with the definition of when the ball is OOB at 2-29-3: "A loose ball is out of bounds when it touches anything, including a player or game official that is out of bounds."

The new caseplay talks about an OOB player who has leaped into the air to bat a pass. This was what the rulesmakers had in mind for the new IP rule. My punt play redux, however, has a player standing OOB when he bats a kick. By rule, it's dead at the touching. How can there be IP on a ball that is dead? I don't think they can circumvent a fundamental such as this.

The new rule covers your OP perfectly.  The player standing out of bounds illegally participiated by intentionally batting a live ball to prevent it from entering the end zone.  The ball wasn't dead until the player OOB illegally participated in the LIVE BALL play.  The RESULT of his illegal participation was a dead ball.  Don't put the cart before the horse.

[Bob M.]

Doesn't "intentional" mean on his own, that is, not being pushed by the defense?  If so, then there is no such thing as "inadvertent" touching of the sideline.  The A player was either pushed out by the defense, or he left the field "intentionally".

REPLY: Atlanta Blue...the way that rule 9-6 has been written for many years would lead one to suspect that the Fed most definitely distinguishes between "intentionally" and "inadvertently." The way it's written, it can't be as simple as "intentional" = not pushed out by an opponent. Article 1 refers to a player of A/K going OOB not pushed out by an opponent; Article 2 refers to any player going OOB 'intentionally.' Obviously two different rules with differing criteria. The Fed must see some difference between the A/K player in article 1 (OOB--not pushed out) and the A/B/K/R player in Article 2 (intentionally OOB). Otherwise there would be no need for two rules. I've always (right or wrong) interpreted the use of "intentional" in article 2 as meaning "I see I'm going OOB but I'm going to do it anyway and possibly gain an advantage."

And I just saw the new wording and you're right that the words "while OOB" don't appear. Well, at least that's one thing cleared up. But I still think the intentional/inadvertent issue exists.

[LarryW60]

And I just saw the new wording and you're right that the words "while OOB" don't appear. Well, at least that's one thing cleared up. But I still think the intentional/inadvertent issue exists.

Does it really exist?  How would this situation not get issued an IP flag:

Player A88 is running a pass route down the sideline and inadvertantly steps on the sideline while running the pass route.  A1 throws the ball to A88 who a. catches the pass or b. tips the pass.

Isn't he still going to get flagged for IP whether he "inadvertantly" steps on the line/OOB or "intentionally" steps on the line/OOB?

[AlUpstateNY]

As the saying goes, "you should be careful what you ask for, you might just get it."  The good news is, the ridiculousness of the notion that by simply jumping off the ground, an OOB player could legally affect play should be gone, even for the doubtingest Thomas.  However it seems considering any ball so touched, regardless of what the intention might be, is simply DEAD, would be a lot more straightforward and uncomplicated. 

We currently have all sorts of situations where, after a ball becomes dead something improper happens, and the covering official decides if whatever happened rises to the level of a foul, or not.  Hopefully, that is the intention of the current rule revision, and unfortunately, is once again written less artfully than possible.   Sometimes things actually work a lot smoother when every last small detail is left somewhat ambiguous and left to be dealt with by the good judgment of the "covering official", rather than trying to anticipate every "what if" possibility.

[Atlanta Blue]

Sometimes things actually work a lot smoother when every last small detail is left somewhat ambiguous and left to be dealt with by the good judgment of the "covering official", rather than trying to anticipate every "what if" possibility.

The problem is, there isnt enough "good judgment" to go around, and one official's "good judgment" isn't another's.

That's why we have rules, to develop consistency, and to leave judgment to the questions of DID something happen rather than WHAT TO DO if it happens.  Officials (and I am one in other sports, this isn't just coach speak) should never be in a position to decide what to do IF it happens.  The rules should dictate that.

[AlUpstateNY]

Perhaps the thought I intended sending wasn't the thought received.  I’m afraid I couldn’t disagree with your assessment more.  Like any obsession taken to an extreme, a fixation on consistency, when taken beyond reality, becomes counterproductive.  Keep in mind there have NEVER been two football plays EXACTLY alike, although there are thousands of plays that are designed to be similar and executed alike. 

Knowing the specifics and details of the rules is imperative for a football official, but no more important that understanding their purpose and the interpretations that have been provided to offer guidance in how to understand and judiciously apply the rules, so their intent is satisfied.  All that can be summed up in one word, "judgment", and like it or not the judgment you are going to deal with is the judgment of the field officials working the particular game you are playing.  Advantage/Disadvantage is a well established, universally applied concept that contributes to the judgment rendered by every football official you ever have or ever will deal with.

It is neither possible, practical nor helpful to try and establish an iron clad certainty, or stated instruction or interpretation to apply to every possible contingency that may affect even a specific football play, much less an ocean of similar plays unfolding on an infinite number of football fields, depending on how far you want to spread the blanket.  Consistency is desirable, but the further you try and anticipate, or expand it, the more frustrated you will be with the results.

Knowledge of the game’s mechanics and rules coupled with a clear understanding of their intent and the interpretations provided as guidance and gained through experience is what produces consistency, and the fuel that activates and drives the process, for better or worse, is the judgment of the field official, working the game you are dealing with

[Atlanta Blue]

Perhaps the thought I intended sending wasn't the thought received.  I’m afraid I couldn’t disagree with your assessment more.  Like any obsession taken to an extreme, a fixation on consistency, when taken beyond reality, becomes counterproductive.  Keep in mind there have NEVER been two football plays EXACTLY alike, although there are thousands of plays that are designed to be similar and executed alike. 

Knowing the specifics and details of the rules is imperative for a football official, but no more important that understanding their purpose and the interpretations that have been provided to offer guidance in how to understand and judiciously apply the rules, so their intent is satisfied.  All that can be summed up in one word, "judgment", and like it or not the judgment you are going to deal with is the judgment of the field officials working the particular game you are playing.  Advantage/Disadvantage is a well established, universally applied concept that contributes to the judgment rendered by every football official you ever have or ever will deal with.

It is neither possible, practical nor helpful to try and establish an iron clad certainty, or stated instruction or interpretation to apply to every possible contingency that may affect even a specific football play, much less an ocean of similar plays unfolding on an infinite number of football fields, depending on how far you want to spread the blanket.  Consistency is desirable, but the further you try and anticipate, or expand it, the more frustrated you will be with the results.

Knowledge of the game’s mechanics and rules coupled with a clear understanding of their intent and the interpretations provided as guidance and gained through experience is what produces consistency, and the fuel that activates and drives the process, for better or worse, is the judgment of the field official, working the game you are dealing with

Using this logic, officials should be able to decide if a holding penalty will only be 5 yards this time since it didn't really affect the play.  Obviously, that isn't true!

Judgment comes into to play to decide if something happened.  Rules then determine what to do about it.  Officlas don't get to make up new rules.  Prior to the fix just announced, the jumping receiver that was previously OOB could LEGALLY leap in the air and bat a ball back to a teammate.  You always wanted to deny this legal move using "common sense" and "judgment".  That's not judgment, that's making up new rules because you don't like the old ones.  Officials don't get that "judgment" as part of their duties and responsibilities.

Thankfully, some group of officials did things the right way and got the rule changed, rather than just taking upon themselves to ignore the old one as you advocated.

[LarryW60]

Using this logic, officials should be able to decide if a holding penalty will only be 5 yards this time since it didn't really affect the play.  Obviously, that isn't true!

You are incorrect.  Officials DO determine whether a holding foul away from the point of attack will cost the offending team ten yards or zero yards.  More often than not the official DECIDES not to flag the foul as no apparent advantage was gained on the play.  The RULE says to flag it.

[AlUpstateNY]

Using this logic, officials should be able to decide if a holding penalty will only be 5 yards this time since it didn't really affect the play.  Obviously, that isn't true!

Thankfully, some group of officials did things the right way and got the rule changed, rather than just taking upon themselves to ignore the old one as you advocated.

I’m not sure whose logic you’re referring to, but nothing I subscribe to.  You are correct that, “Officials don’t get to make up new rules”.  I’m afraid you misspoke suggesting, “Prior to the fix just announced, the jumping receiver that was previously OOB could LEGALLY leap in the air and bat a ball back to a teammate”.   

That was an interpretation that surfaced “somewhere”which was hotly disputed, and unfortunately never quantified one way or the other.  In the absence of verification, to what I still contend was simply a dopey misinterpretation, I chose to ignore an interpretation that made no sense to me (and apparently to nobody else as there was not a single response to repeated requests for a rational explanation).

Being totally and honestly incapable of defending or explaining that interpretation, I concluded the appropriate thing to do would be reject it unless and until it was verified, which thankfully NEVER HAPPENED.  I never suggested anyone ignore the logical conclusion of the rule, I suggested I was going to ignore what I considered an illogical and irrational interpretation that NOBODY could rationally explain or justify.

We each have to decide which is correct, blindly accepting what we believe to be absolutely wrong, or applying what we believe to be sound judgment and experience to something that is recognized as being otherwise unexplainable.  There are times during a football game, when the buck stops dead and the judgment of the field official, in the absence of all other evidence, is all that’s available to get it started moving again.  Perhaps that’s why we’re paid so well.