Illegal Participation & Kick Off Out of Bounds

[cougar729]

Question about the new illegal participation in 9-6-2

Team K kicks off from the K40 yard line and the ball bounces near the sideline at the R30 yard line.  Kick returner R45 intnetionally goes out of bounds at the R30 and reaches back in bounds and touches the in bounds loose ball at the R30. 

What is the ruling?

Interested in hearing what you guys have to say.  My opinion is that we have offsetting fouls Team A Kickoff OOB and Team B illegal participation. Not sure if i'm correctly interpreting this though.

[Jackhammer]

Did the ball go OOB or simply become dead by the act of R?

[Harry]

The Fed put out an interpretation on this.

SITUATION 3 (9.6.2): K1 free-kicks the ball toward the sideline. R1 runs to a sideline and intentionally steps out of bounds. While R1 is still out of bounds, he intentionally touches the ball as it nears the sideline. The ball is declared dead by the covering official. RULING: Illegal participation by R1. This is not a kick out of bounds as the ball was touched by an R player and the ball became dead when it was touched.  (4-3-1; 6-1-8)

http://www.nfhs.org/content.aspx?id=5549

[mbyron]

This rule was probably put in place to prevent R from getting an unfair advantage by creating a kick out of bounds. Makes sense in that light.

It is NOT a double foul.

[cougar729]

Thanks Harry, should have grabbed the case book first

[Harry]

Thanks Harry, should have grabbed the case book first

No problem, though I'm not sure if this is in the casebook.  The Fed posted it a few weeks ago.

[Atlanta Blue]

Enforce from previous spot since it's a loose ball play?

[hoochycoochy]

Enforce from previous spot since it's a loose ball play?

That's what I've got. 

[takemeaway10]

The Fed put out an interpretation on this.

SITUATION 3 (9.6.2): K1 free-kicks the ball toward the sideline. R1 runs to a sideline and intentionally steps out of bounds. While R1 is still out of bounds, he intentionally touches the ball as it nears the sideline. The ball is declared dead by the covering official. RULING: Illegal participation by R1. This is not a kick out of bounds as the ball was touched by an R player and the ball became dead when it was touched.  (4-3-1; 6-1-8)

http://www.nfhs.org/content.aspx?id=5549

While I agree with the ruling 100%, I don't understand how the first rule relates, except for the fact that they made an effort to specify that the ball became dead inbounds because of contact with something out of bounds... doesn't that make the ball out of bounds?

[Wingman]

No, the ball is not OOB but it sure is dead.. and it wasn't the free kick that took it OOB to be declared dead.  Big difference, else you would have a flag against the kickers for a F/K OOB instead of IP on the receivers.

[mbyron]

While I agree with the ruling 100%, I don't understand how the first rule relates, except for the fact that they made an effort to specify that the ball became dead inbounds because of contact with something out of bounds... doesn't that make the ball out of bounds?

The reference to 4-3-1 concerns where to spot the ball. The relevant provision is the second sentence:

When the ball becomes dead in the field of play because of touching a person
who is out of bounds, the out-of-bounds spot is fixed by the yard line through the
foremost point of the ball.

[Ump33]

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.

[bama_stripes]

I believe the intent of the interp was to emphasize that K is not to be penalized for R's illegal action.

[takemeaway10]

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.

2-29-2: A ball in player possession is out of bounds when the runner or the ball touches anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside a sideline or end line.

Again... why is the ball not considered out of bounds when the person who possesses it is out of bounds? Heck, even if he muffs it, then we have a loose ball contacting a player that is out of bounds...

No, the ball is not OOB but it sure is dead.. and it wasn't the free kick that took it OOB to be declared dead.  Big difference, else you would have a flag against the kickers for a F/K OOB instead of IP on the receivers.

How does the kick not take it out of bounds when the kicked ball clearly touches an OOB player? Like I said, I agree with the ruling and I'd definitely be upset if K had been penalized for this, but there's really no rule to back up this call (besides 1-1-6, I suppose). Just add another rule: If R's IP causes K's free kick to go OOB, only R is penalized.

[ECILLJ]

 

How does the kick not take it out of bounds when the kicked ball clearly touches an OOB player? 
[/quote]

The answer can be found in Rule 9.6.2. As officials, it is important for us to understand the written rule but also the intent of the rule. Common sense tells us there is no intent to penalize K for a kick that is illegally touched by R while the ball is physically in bounds. The intent of the rule you are referring to is a ball that is legally touched by someone who is OOB.

[takemeaway10]

The answer can be found in Rule 9.6.2. As officials, it is important for us to understand the written rule but also the intent of the rule. Common sense tells us there is no intent to penalize K for a kick that is illegally touched by R while the ball is physically in bounds. The intent of the rule you are referring to is a ball that is legally touched by someone who is OOB.

You're missing the point. There is NO RULE that says such a action wouldn't result in a KOB. I hear what you're saying about intent; that's why I cited rule 1-1-6. I'm fully aware of the intent; I'm asking for a rule that supports their ruling in the case they mentioned. It would be nice to support this decision with a little more than the NFHS's intent or "because it's fair." 

If officials used nothing but common sense to rule their games, sports would be a train wreck. Last... the ball is not physically inbounds. There's nothing that says a ball hovering over the field of play is inbounds.

[mbyron]

You're missing the point. There is NO RULE that says such a action wouldn't result in a KOB.

That's not correct. The ruling is quoted above: it's Situation 3 (9.6.2) from the NFHS website. This official ruling, like rulings in the case book, have the force of rules.

Eventually, this play might appear in the case book, or NFHS might make an editorial change to the kick out of bounds rule. In the meantime, this ruling has the force of a rule.

[Atlanta Blue]

As officials, it is important for us to understand the written rule but also the intent of the rule. Common sense tells us there is no intent to penalize K for a kick that is illegally touched by R while the ball is physically in bounds. The intent of the rule you are referring to is a ball that is legally touched by someone who is OOB.

Careful, until the IP rule was rewritten this year, there was a case play that said EXACTLY that, and i got an interp from the NFHS that said the same thing.  It made no difference where the ball was, if it touched R who was OOB, even if R intentionally went out and reached back in and touched it, the foul was on K.

With the change in the IP rule (made to defeat the Oregon play), this loophole has also been fixed, as long as R INTENTIONALLY went OOB.

The problem still remains with this play:  kick is near the sideline.  R goes to field it and accidently steps on the sideline.  While touching the sideline, he fields the kick.  By rule, this is a free kick OOB, foul on K.

The NCAA interpretaion differentiates on the plane of the sideline.  The FED rule/interp does not.

[takemeaway10]

That's not correct. The ruling is quoted above: it's Situation 3 (9.6.2) from the NFHS website. This official ruling, like rulings in the case book, have the force of rules.

Eventually, this play might appear in the case book, or NFHS might make an editorial change to the kick out of bounds rule. In the meantime, this ruling has the force of a rule.

I can roll with that!

[ECILLJ]

 

"The problem still remains with this play:  kick is near the sideline.  R goes to field it and accidently steps on the sideline.  While touching the sideline, he fields the kick.  By rule, this is a free kick OOB, foul on K."

 Atlanta Blue, you make a good point, but I believe the Federation views any stepping out of bounds as intentional unless the player is contacted and forced out of bounds. Hence, there is really no allowance for accidentally stepping out of bounds. The Case Book has several examples of similar plays where the player accidentally steps out of bounds and still commits the IP infraction.

[Atlanta Blue]

 Atlanta Blue, you make a good point, but I believe the Federation views any stepping out of bounds as intentional unless the player is contacted and forced out of bounds.

I said that earlier this summer and was told for the purpose of the new IP rule, I was wrong.  Accidently means "not intentionally", it doesn't mean "unless contacted".  But I think what I was told creates all kinds of problems.

EXAMPLE:  A88 goes out for a pass, steps on the sideline while leaping to catch a high pass, catches the ball, and falls to the ground OOB.  Any official with any sense simply calls this an incomplete pass.  but under the new rule (and your interpretation of "intentional" as being not forced), then he is guilty of IP, as he "intentionally" went OOB, and then touched the ball.

If we consider him as "accidently" going OOB, this play becomes nothing but an incomplete pass.

But contrast that with A88 running a route near the sideline, he steps on the line and cuts back into the field, catching the ball.  Technically, this is IP, which supports your interpretation of "intentionally".

[mbyron]

AB, you're quite right, and there is a problem here concerning the sense of "intentionally goes out of bounds."

My sense of this is that NFHS wants that phrase to mean "goes out of bounds without being contacted by an opponent" for all plays OTHER than kicks. For kicks, they want the phrase to mean "goes out of bounds to gain advantage from the kick out of bounds rule." That equivocation is no way to run a rule book.

I think it's dicey to ask the covering official to judge whether an R player has "intentionally" gone out of bounds.

I think that the simplest fix is to change the kick rule: define a kick out of bounds as a kick that first contacts something out of bounds other than an R player (goes out of bounds untouched by R). If R catches the ball with a foot on the sideline, R gets the ball at the inbounds spot, and there's no foul on the play. This fix fits better with the IP rule (which ordinarily charges IP when a player returns to the field and touches the ball) and is a minimal change to the kick rule.

[SanDiegoStryker]

But contrast that with A88 running a route near the sideline, he steps on the line and cuts back into the field, catching the ball.  Technically, this is IP, which supports your interpretation of "intentionally".

Technically? So are you saying this should be flagged and a 15 yd penalty enforced or not?

[Wingman]

I can roll with that!

That's why I stated this wasn't a F/K OOB based on the original poster case play.  At the time.. I thought it looked familiar and now I know what thanks to MBryon. I had read that NFHS interpret back in late July. It is what is and you have to believe the rationale why it's that way.  Flagging team-K on this would be horrible.

[takemeaway10]

That's why I stated this wasn't a F/K OOB based on the original poster case play.  At the time.. I thought it looked familiar and now I know what thanks to MBryon. I had read that NFHS interpret back in late July. It is what is and you have to believe the rationale why it's that way.  Flagging team-K on this would be horrible.

I've said it more than once that I support their ruling... I just don't know why they didn't write a new rule. IMO, if a free kick lands inbounds near an R player, but he makes no attempt to recover the ball and it rolls out of bounds, we wouldn't have a foul. However, it is a KOB. I thought the rationale behind the rule is that R should have a fair chance at legally catching/recovering the free kick. I just don't feel like I should have to guess/decipher/assume their POV when this could have easily been another rule change to support their decision.

The problem still remains with this play:  kick is near the sideline.  R goes to field it and accidently steps on the sideline.  While touching the sideline, he fields the kick.  By rule, this is a free kick OOB, foul on K.

The NCAA interpretaion differentiates on the plane of the sideline.  The FED rule/interp does not.

I'd say that's a KOB if R felt that he positioned himself to catch a kick that just happened to put him OOB. He wasn't given a fair chance to legally catch the kick.