Free kick situation

[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.

[SC Official]

I'm with Rich. This is not basketball.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

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.

I am not disputing that the ball would be out of bounds by rule, but for a penalty or foul purposes, I am not seeing where it says that K is responsible for that specific action. I know the kick is over and the ball is out of bounds, but did K technically cause it to go out of bounds? If R touches the ball and the ball goes out of bounds after them touching it, we do not penalize K for a Free Kick Interaction even though the status of the kick never ended otherwise?

We are not far off here, I am making a distinction as to why we have a foul here or not. I'm going to ask someone for clarification on this one to be comfortable. I agree that used to be the hard fast interpretation, but something tells me that changed for this means the R could be the only reason this foul takes place on K.

Peace

[tomes1978]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not disputing that the ball would be out of bounds by rule, but for a penalty or foul purposes, I am not seeing where it says that K is responsible for that specific action. I know the kick is over and the ball is out of bounds, but did K technically cause it to go out of bounds? If R touches the ball and the ball goes out of bounds after them touching it, we do not penalize K for a Free Kick Interaction even though the status of the kick never ended otherwise?

We are not far off here, I am making a distinction as to why we have a foul here or not. I'm going to ask someone for clarification on this one to be comfortable. I agree that used to be the hard fast interpretation, but something tells me that changed for this means the R could be the only reason this foul takes place on K.

Peace

The rule does state:
"A free kick should not be kicked out of bounds between the goal lines untouched inbounds by R".

When was it touched INBOUNDS by R?

Also, I do have this play on Hudl....is there a way I can share it here?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by tomes1978

The rule does state:
"A free kick should not be kicked out of bounds between the goal lines untouched inbounds by R".

When was it touched INBOUNDS by R?

Also, I do have this play on Hudl....is there a way I can share it here?

You can upload it elsewhere and put a link here. Or if there's a way to put a direct link here from HUDL, that's fine, too.