NFHS Question

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Nice citation LRZ.

7.1.1 SITUATION A: A1, while holding the ball inbounds near the sideline,
touches (a) player B1; (b) a photographer; (c) a coach; (d) an official, all of whom
are out of bounds. RULING: A1 is not out of bounds in (a), (b), (c) or (d). To be
out of bounds, A1 must touch the floor or some object on or outside a boundary
line. People are not considered to be objects and play continues. Inadvertently
touching someone who is out of bounds, without gaining an advantage, is not
considered a violation.

As a result of LRZ's post, I've made a change in my List (first change not created by rule change in several years, I'm always willing to improve the List):

To be out of bounds, a player must touch the floor, or some object, on or outside a boundary line. People are not considered to be objects, so inadvertently touching someone who is out of bounds (another player, a photographer, a coach, an official, etc.), without gaining an advantage, is not considered an out of bounds violation.

So in my example, where a player purposely touches a cheerleader out of bounds, we're calling it out of bounds?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

So in my example, where a player purposely touches a cheerleader out of bounds, we're calling it out of bounds?

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

According to NFHS CB 7.1.1A, the player would have committed an out-of-bounds violation.

Always listen to Mark. Well, not always. Just most of the time. Wait, not most of the time, just some of the time.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

So let's say a player with the ball is on the endline but is falling out of bounds. To stop himself from falling out of bounds he reaches out and pushes off of a cheerleader who is standing too close to the line. You have nothing? Perhaps an unsporting play? I don't see how it's a legal play, yet a cheerleader is a person not an object.

Originally Posted by BryanV21

So in my example, where a player purposely touches a cheerleader out of bounds, we're calling it out of bounds?

Bryan:

To answer your question: Yes.

But the real discussion we all should be having is this: Let's change Bryan's play to this: "A1 is falling out of bounds and touches a cheerleader who is standing too close to the boundary line." How many of us, even bald old geezers like me, Bob, Jeff, Tony, and Billy, would, without really thinking have a bang-bang an out-of-bounds violation by A1?

Let the discussion begin!

MTD, Sr.

[Kansas Ref]

Thanks BryanV21 for posing this enigmatic issue:
If A1 touches the cheerleader who is standing out-of-bounds and this slight touch has enabled A1 to keep from falling out-of-bounds, then A1 has used the touching of an out-of-bounds person to indeed ''gain an advantage".
Also, if the coach is conferring with a player [as in the sitch also described] then that team has indeed "gained an advantage" by being allowed to 'confer' with the coach who is out-of-bounds.
Interested to see where this goes. Although this is a sasquatch type of play---I'm thinking I'd have out-of-bounds on the deliberate touching of cheerleader for the explicit purpose of gaining balance to keep from falling out of bounds. I will dutifully fall on my sword.

[deecee]

The 0 times this has happened in 15 years I am ok with either of the calls. If I make it or my partner such is life. I won't lose any sleep and neither will anyone else in the game, in the association, or the state most likely (possibly even the world).

The best part about it is if you make one call supported by rule then you can say "blah blah it's supported by rule" and you are good to go. Or if you make the wrong call you can say "crap never seen this and I kicked it" and you are still good to go. Ideally I would like to err on the side of rule support but this doesn't happen. The rarity it may happen in a meaningful game you won't get crucified (well you will get crucified by half the gym depending on your call or lack of call).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

Also, if the coach is conferring with a player [as in the sitch also described] then that team has indeed "gained an advantage" by being allowed to 'confer' with the coach who is out-of-bounds.

But was the contact relevant to the advantage? Did the coach, in conferring with the player, physically prevent the player from falling OOB. Or was whatever advantage the player gained independent of the touch?

I believe the advantage being referred to is specifically about physically aiding the player, perhaps preventing them from stepping/falling OOB.