Free kick situation
 

Opening kick off Friday night. Ball kicked toward sideline. Checks up and stops 1 inch from the sideline at the R11 yard line. R comes up straddles the sideline and picks the ball up. What do you have?

Ball down at the 11. K did not kick the ball out of bounds, R is responsible for the ball being ruled out of bounds.

Peace

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

Free kick situation
 

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

So this brings up my next question regarding this play....rule 6-2-9 states "a free kick should not be kicked out of bounds between the goal line untouched INBOUNDS by R". The ball was never touched inbounds by R...

I'm with you. This is a kickoff out of bounds (KOB).

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.....

So double foul with Illegal Participation? Re-kick?

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).

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

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

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

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'm with Rich. This is not basketball.

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?

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.

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.

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?

I really don’t like this. A six-foot tall player lying prone could touch a ball that is at rest two yards from the sideline and cause a foul against K? Many teams angle kick & would love to have their KOs end up there.

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!

It's the rule, suported by definitions and case plays.

If a player lays down and reaches out, I'm enforcing IP. It's in the bag of tools for obvious intentional plays of the ball.

I still wouldn't enforce IP in tomes's play.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Kinda like this?
https://youtu.be/zdw3Xj__eKA

Many years ago, this happened to us in a high school game. We kicked off, ball was bouncing near the sideline. R caught the ball, while standing out of bounds. Penalty was on us, the K team. Needless to say, not a popular call.

Not popular, but correct.