Player inbounds or out of bounds or nowhere?

[Kalle]

There probably are some people who are not on Rom's mailing list, and in any case I think this is a good discussion point.

Play situation: Airborne B44 deflects A16's legal forward pass beyond the neutral zone.   B48 then pushed A88 out of the way and intercepts the pass. What next?

After answering this, go and re-read rules 6-2-1, 7-3-9-h and the A.R. 6-2-2-IV, and answer the question again.

[Hawkeye]

I agree that AR 6-2-2-IV is one of the worst AR's in the book (as Rom reports from his survey).  But if you take AR 6-2-2-IV and AR 7-3-6-VII together, it seems that RR determines a player inbounds or out of bounds based on where he lands, so if your airborne player who deflects the pass lands inbounds, then no DPI, if he lands out of bounds then DPI.  That certainly is not a desirable interpretation!!!

[maven]

... so if your airborne player who deflects the pass lands inbounds, then no DPI, if he lands out of bounds then DPI.  That certainly is not a desirable interpretation!!!

You're ruling DPI after B touches the pass? 7-3-9h has already been cited (it's an application of a provision in 7-3-8).

[Kalle]

You're ruling DPI after B touches the pass? 7-3-9h has already been cited (it's an application of a provision in 7-3-8).

The problem with 7-3-9-h is that it requires the player being inbounds when doing the touching. As we all well know, A.R. 6-2-2-IV famously says that an airborne team B player is not an inbounds player for the purposes of touching a free kick inbounds. As the rules for inbounds and out of bounds do not say that they should be different for different types of plays, it must therefore be that for the PI rules to disappear the player must be grounded when touching the forward pass (or, as Hawkeye said, it may even be that inbounds/out of bounds is determined by where the airborne player lands, which adds more "fun").

I don't think any of us understand the logic behind 6-2-2-IV and Rom has just made it even less logical. I wish it would go away.

[Diablo]

Play situation: Airborne B44 deflects A16's legal forward pass beyond the neutral zone.   B48 then pushed A88 out of the way and intercepts the pass. What next?

Although it may not be official, I think there is precedent for DPI coming off the table after airborne B44 touches a forward pass.  Hence, airborne B44 must be considered inbounds .... historically, at least, FWTW.

[wlemonnier]

The purpose of the flag pickup for the DPI is simply to negate the foul because the tip throws off the contact timing of the defender.  Debating the technicality of the rule is fine but please officiate this play as a flag pickup.

[Aussie-Zebra]

Thanks for clearing that up Bill - had me spinning a little.

Perhaps I can digress a little now - what is the logic behind the ruling that a tipped kick can negate a running into/roughing the passer foul ?

[zebra99]

Thanks for clearing that up Bill - had me spinning a little.

Perhaps I can digress a little now - what is the logic behind the ruling that a tipped kick can negate a running into/roughing the passer foul ?

since there really is not a timing issue like a tipped pass taking off the DPI, my hunch is that it's simply rewarding the defender by not penalizing him for a good defensive play.

And think about the smothered kick where the defender is right on top of the kicker -  still a runner who can be legally hit/tackled until he kicks the ball.  Would be very hard to penalize the defender who essentially smothers the kick a millisecond after it was kicked and then crashes into the kicker.

[BamaRon]

I do not understand why rule 6 and AR is in your question or answer it deals with kicks out of bounds.

Your play situation is like the John Bible ruling in a bowl game a couple of years ago and accepted as the rule.

After the legal forward pass has been tipped, it is a loose ball (rule II will save you everytime) that maybe batted in any direction. You may push pull shove to get to a loose ball.  DPI is off.

Bowl situation, Airborne Auburn defender clearly possesses (not by rule, remember airborne) ball before landing out of bounds and throws it forward to an inbound player to complete the interception. Flag thrown for illegal forward pass.  John Bible correctly waived off flag.  Airborne player did not possess ball by rule so he could only have batted it, ruling now.  At time Bible said he just knew te flag was not proper.

Also what is up with AR 6-2-2-IV no different from reciever straddling sideline when he catches the kick, still kick out of bounds with the same options. Only issue might be if airborne player muffs kick that then hits inbounds before going out of bounds. I probably would not have flag in that case.   

[Kalle]

Your play situation is like the John Bible ruling in a bowl game a couple of years ago and accepted as the rule.

Actually, the Bible ruling was incorrect on the field, they did penalize for an illegal forward pass, but fortunately they gave the ball to team B (after enforcing five yards from the spot of the bat). The very same play had been presented in the McGriff officiating forum during the very same season and the correct consensus (legal bat) was reached there.

After the legal forward pass has been tipped, it is a loose ball (rule II will save you everytime) that maybe batted in any direction. You may push pull shove to get to a loose ball.  DPI is off.

The rule requires that the tip must be made by an inbounds player. A.R. 6-2-2-IV says, that at least for kicks, an airborne player is not inbounds. So, either the rules for inbounds and out of bounds are different for kicks and passes, or a touch by an airborne player is not a touch by an inbounds player (or, as Hawkeye said, the status of an airborne player might be determined by where he lands). Choose your poison.

Also what is up with AR 6-2-2-IV no different from reciever straddling sideline when he catches the kick, still kick out of bounds with the same options. Only issue might be if airborne player muffs kick that then hits inbounds before going out of bounds. I probably would not have flag in that case.

What is the difference between an airborne team B player (by rule he is not out of bounds) touching and controlling the kicked ball and then landing out of bounds, and an airborne team B player touching and not controlling the kicked ball with the ball then landing out of bounds? In both cases there's a touch by a team B player not out of bounds before the kick goes out of bounds. Why would we not flag the second case when the A.R. tells us to flag the first case?

[zebra99]

and in that same year but before the interpretation came out - I had this play.  OB throws forward pass which is batted by a rushing D lineman straight up in the air.  The QB jumped, clearly "caught" the pass and before coming to the ground turned, re-cocked and threw another pass across the LOS.  He jumped very high!  Of course, I threw my flag for a second forward pass and felt soooooooo proud that I remembered the rule!

But, alas, I find out later that all he did was legally bat a pass even though he really didn't bat it, he passed it with normal passing motion.

Thank God it didn't happen in the EZ. 

[Kalle]

But, alas, I find out later that all he did was legally bat a pass even though he really didn't bat it, he passed it with normal passing motion.

Considering that it took the McGriff crowd weeks to arrive at a consensus, I don't think anybody is blaming you or Bible for not figuring it out on the field. Goes to show that there are very few plays that we can come up with that won't ever happen on the field...

[TXMike]

It is not my recollection that it took weeks for the McGriff posse to reach a conclusion but I may be confused as we also had a group on ICQ that discused the play and pretty much figured out what "A88" had done was legal.