[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by BroKen62

Somebody help me with this - is there any reason why this interpretation is not still binding on the situation? I changed my position based solely on the fact that this OFFICIAL interpretation was given in the NFHS casebook, and according to what I've read and others have written on this topic, there has never been anything to reverse this interpretation. That being the case, is this not precedent (proof) of the way the powers-that-be intend for officials to apply the rules to this particular situation? Not trying to stir up trouble, just trying to understand.

Originally Posted by BroKen62

I will agree that being up in the air is not the same as being inbounds. But I also have to accept the fact that being up in the air is not out of bounds either, because of the OOB definition we should all know by heart by now.

Clearly, the determining factor between this particular instance being a dead ball or IP is determined by where the receiver ultimately comes down, at least in the case of (a). If he comes down inbounds, then and only then is he "inbounds," thus the ruling of a legal catch and ultimately, IP. In (c), because he comes down out of bounds, then he is . . . well, out of bounds and thus, the dead ball. In (b), because he was up in the air, he is neither in or out, which most closely matches the OP presented here.

In the OP, because he was not out of bounds when he touched the ball, the down cannot be blown dead. Also, because he had been out of bounds, he could not legally touch the pass, so when he did, even though he was neither inbounds or out of bounds, he committed IP, because he obviously participated in the play. As has already been proved in this discussion, a player does not have to be inbounds to illegally participate in the play, so we don't have to make up a rule to put him inbounds when in fact he is not.

b. also matches how I'd like the play ruled in the case of the player of R who goes out of bounds and then reaches back into the field to make K's free kick dead and out of bounds.

In the case of the pass play, I suppose ruling IP in a & b but not c satisfies an intuitive sense of "participation", but it still allows team A a second bite of the apple in the example given of sending receivers beyond the end line to jump and bat the ball back, forcing a repeat of the down to prevent a TD catch.