Free kick situation

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tomes1978

That's exactly what we did .....however, I believe should have been illegal participation. As R intentionally went out of bounds and participating in the play by touching the ball.

Well that is the only way that you can have a IP on R. If they accidentally go out of bounds and be legal. For that classification, you really HTBT.

But based on the OP, all it said is he went out of bounds. How matters and I would not assume that unless it was stated or saw the play myself to make that determination. But in this case it would have be be obvious to make that ruling.

Peace

[tomes1978]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well that is the only way that you can have a IP on R. If they accidentally go out of bounds and be legal. For that classification, you really HTBT.

But based on the OP, all it said is he went out of bounds. How matters and I would not assume that unless it was stated or saw the play myself to make that determination. But in this case it would have be be obvious to make that ruling.

Peace

He was not blocked out of bounds....he was out of bounds all by himself....but yes, it was obvious he knew he was out of bounds as he picked the ball up and did not try to run or anything.....

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tomes1978

He was not blocked out of bounds....he was out of bounds all by himself....but yes, it was obvious he knew he was out of bounds as he picked the ball up and did not try to run or anything.....

A and K are the only players that cannot accidentally go out of bounds. Trying to make a play on the ball and touching the line by B and R is not illegal.

I get it we are splitting hairs, but that is not how the rule reads. B and R must go out intentionally as stated in 9-6-2. So the issue is if you determine it was done on purpose for this part of the fouling situation.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

If R is out of bounds, by rule this is a KOB.

Originally Posted by Rich

I'm likely just going with a KOB. He likely intentionally played the ball, but that's not a foul unless he *intentionally went out of bounds*, which is unlikely.

Case play 6.1.9 Situation C, (b).

Redding Example 6-12, page 51.

Unless one is 100% that the player *intentionally went out of bounds*, it's simply a free kick out of bounds and R has its 4 options (and will likely take the ball on the 35 on that side's inbounds spot).

Maybe I am reading this play wrong from the OP, but the ball stopped and came to rest correct? If that is the case, I do not see your play as a justification for a Free-Kick Infraction. Honestly, I do not care what Redding says about this play because that for all intensive purposes is not official. If the ball is at rest and the player runs up to get the ball and accidentally steps out of bounds before the possession or even touching the football, K is not responsible for a foul here. The Case Play you referenced talks about a player reaching through the sideline to make a catch on the out of bounds side. That is not what happened here from my reading in the OP. If it is I stand corrected, but not what I understood in this play.

If my original thought is correct, I have the ball is out on the 11 by the actions of R and give the ball 1st and 10 at the 11.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Maybe I am reading this play wrong from the OP, but the ball stopped and came to rest correct? If that is the case, I do not see your play as a justification for a Free-Kick Infraction. Honestly, I do not care what Redding says about this play because that for all intensive purposes is not official. If the ball is at rest and the player runs up to get the ball and accidentally steps out of bounds before the possession or even touching, K is not responsible for a foul here. The Case Play you referenced talks about a player reaching through the sideline to make a catch on the out of bounds side. That is not what happened here from my reading. If it is I stand corrected, but not what I understood in this play.

If my original thought is correct, I have the ball is out on the 11 by the actions of R and give the ball 1st and 10 at the 11.

Peace

Sorry, but the interpretation is the same at the NFHS and NCAA levels. The status of R is out of bounds and therefore a live ball touched (or was touched by) an out of bounds player, making it out of bounds untouched by an inbounds R player.

R has to have inbounds status for the ball to be considered touched by R inbounds.

I'm using Redding as an example only.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

Sorry, but the interpretation is the same at the NFHS and NCAA levels. The status of R is out of bounds and therefore a live ball touched (or was touched by) an out of bounds player, making it out of bounds untouched by an inbounds R player.

R has to have inbounds status for the ball to be considered touched by R inbounds.

I'm using Redding as an example only.

But that is not the example given in the play you referenced. I am not arguing that the interpretation of a ball in flight goes on the out of bounds side and R reaches for it it would be a foul on K. I agree that is the case, but that is not this play we are discussing now. This play involves the only thing that makes the ball go out of bounds is the actions by R. If R leaves the ball alone we have a live ball that anyone can go after. We have a live ball that K can take possession of if they get to it. I need another reference to be sure and that is what I am looking for. That is the case I could be out of bounds as R (however I got there) and "punch" the ball completely inbounds and K has fouled because I am completely out of bounds. I am not convinced that is the ruling based on other rulings I have seen over the years.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But that is not the example given in the play you referenced. I am not arguing that the interpretation of a ball in flight goes on the out of bounds side and R reaches for it it would be a foul on K. I agree that is the case, but that is not this play we are discussing now. This play involves the only thing that makes the ball go out of bounds is the actions by R. If R leaves the ball alone we have a live ball that anyone can go after. We have a live ball that K can take possession of if they get to it. I need another reference to be sure and that is what I am looking for. That is the case I could be out of bounds as R (however I got there) and "punch" the ball completely inbounds and K has fouled because I am completely out of bounds. I am not convinced that is the ruling based on other rulings I have seen over the years.

Peace

When a receiving team player who is out of bounds is the first to touch a kick, the kicking team has caused the ball to go out of bounds. It does not matter if the ball is inside the plane of the sideline when it is touched.

Definitions here -- what gives the ball out of bounds status? 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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by tomes1978

He was not blocked out of bounds....he was out of bounds all by himself....but yes, it was obvious he knew he was out of bounds as he picked the ball up and did not try to run or anything.....

Did he wait to play the ball until he saw it come to rest? So the ball was at rest with no player attempting to play it? And the only player who tries to play it is one who was already OOB? Then ignore his touching it; this is a kick that's come to rest in the field of play with no eligible player attempting to play it. R's ball at that spot, no foul.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Did he wait to play the ball until he saw it come to rest? So the ball was at rest with no player attempting to play it? And the only player who tries to play it is one who was already OOB? Then ignore his touching it; this is a kick that's come to rest in the field of play with no eligible player attempting to play it. R's ball at that spot, no foul.

For a kickoff to be at rest, I would have to see nobody coming after it since it's a ball that can legally be recovered by K. Even a player coming at a distance is going to get my benefit of a doubt.

In other words, my guess is that it wasn't sitting there long enough for me to make that ruling.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Rich

For a kickoff to be at rest, I would have to see nobody coming after it since it's a ball that can legally be recovered by K. Even a player coming at a distance is going to get my benefit of a doubt.

In other words, my guess is that it wasn't sitting there long enough for me to make that ruling.

Over to you, Tomes. Did the other players hold up? Or was the player of R taking it so as to deny the possibility of possession by K?

[tomes1978]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Over to you, Tomes. Did the other players hold up? Or was the player of R taking it so as to deny the possibility of possession by K?

No players were holding up. K was well aware it was a live football and was coming hard for it! The R player purposely stepped out of bounds picked the ball and stood there.

R, like everyone else in the stadium, thought that kick was going to go out of bounds. It seriously hit the ground and took one small bounce and laid right there about an inch from the sideline. It was crazy!