Illegal participation, ... or not?

[PSU213]

Originally posted by LJ845
By definition, runner is not out of bounds. My first thought was also helping the runner, but I believe that that would be a tough sell. You know the player is going to tell you and his coach that it was a reflex action and that he put his hands up to prevent A12 from running into him.

Interesting thought about if he were to throw a block. I agree that it should be a foul, but for what as IP does not apply? Will have to look that one up tonite.

I agree that A56 could say it was a reflex action to to try and prevent 'major contact' with him and A12, but the rule says "an offensive player shall not push, pull, or lift the runner to assist his forward progress (9-1)." Now I would not want to get into a physics debate, but I'm guessing you would be able to tell the difference between a "defense action" on the part of A56, and a true "push."

Also, I don't think the rule implies any intent. Even if A56 means to protect himself, but also pushes A12 in bounds/forward, I would think this still qualifies as a foul, even though he didn't "mean" or intend to push A12 forward.

[LJ845]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by PSU213

I agree that A56 could say it was a reflex action to to try and prevent 'major contact' with him and A12, but the rule says "an offensive player shall not push, pull, or lift the runner to assist his forward progress (9-1)." Now I would not want to get into a physics debate, but I'm guessing you would be able to tell the difference between a "defense action" on the part of A56, and a true "push."

Also, I don't think the rule implies any intent. Even if A56 means to protect himself, but also pushes A12 in bounds/forward, I would think this still qualifies as a foul, even though he didn't "mean" or intend to push A12 forward.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree 100% with your interpretation and your comments regarding intent and how it applies to this play. Same applies for a player that trips over his own feet and ends up clipping an opponent. He didn't mean to do this, but a foul nonetheless.

I am just overstating the obvious that this would be a tough sell unless he obviously pushed him forward/inbounds. I can already hear the coach asking why his players cannot protect themselves from injury or the infamous statement of how we are not trying to protect his players from injury.

[ABoselli]

If he pushes the runner back in bounds (sideways) and not forward, there can be no foul here. Correct?

[Opie]

I think this one is open to some interpretation. As previously stated the rule reads "An offensive player shall not push, pull or lift the runner to assist his forward progress."
Does keeping him inbounds assist his forward progress? By not keeping him inbounds forward progress stops. I don't know on this one.

[PSU213]

Originally posted by LJ845
quote:
I am just overstating the obvious that this would be a tough sell unless he obviously pushed him forward/inbounds. I can already hear the coach asking why his players cannot protect themselves from injury or the infamous statement of how we are not trying to protect his players from injury.

It's going to be a tough sell no matter what, because you don't see the call made that often (or at all), especially at the NCAA/NFL levels. That being said, it is in the rulebook, and I have yet to find an NF official who said he would ignore the rule.

[twref]

Regardless of the sport games would be better officiated if we could verify what the "founding fathers" meant when they wrote the rule-There's the rule and then the spirit of the rule. The casebook attempts to help with this but still doesn't cover a lot of topics. I personally don't believe when the "aiding the runner" foul was written they wanted us to throw flags on the A56 scenario. Then again what do I know-I threw a flag one time for a block in the back on the kicking team. I felt it fit the description of the foul-my partners said something about being anal.

[Texoma_LJ]

One thing to consider is whether or not the "unfair acts" rule 9-9 may be administered. By using the logic that the player would have gone out of bounds and the player was touched to prevent him from leaving the field of play, A gained an unfair advantage. The enforcement for this penalty would be the ball being marked at the spot of A12 being touched by A56 (this spot is not noted in the example) and it would be 1-10 if the line to gain was reached, or 3rd and ?? if it was not.

[PSU213]

Originally posted by Texoma_LJ
One thing to consider is whether or not the "unfair acts" rule 9-9 may be administered. By using the logic that the player would have gone out of bounds and the player was touched to prevent him from leaving the field of play, A gained an unfair advantage. The enforcement for this penalty would be the ball being marked at the spot of A12 being touched by A56 (this spot is not noted in the example) and it would be 1-10 if the line to gain was reached, or 3rd and ?? if it was not.

My thoughts on that is if this is unfair it is because A56 is "helping the runner," and if so, that is the foul. If it is not ruled helping the runner, I don't find anything else to make it unfair.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally posted by ref18
Now I don't have illegal participation because A56 was pushed OOB. But, aren't you out of bounds when you come into contact with something that is out of bounds?? (Or is my basketball training just running through my head?)

That is your basketball training.

Originally posted by ref18
Now the tandem buck, doesn't that only apply when you're pushing a team-mate forward?? It would seem that this push was sideways, because A56 was standing OOB, and was making sure that A12 did not go OOB, so the push couldn't have been from behind, it just doesn't work.

A12 was moving towards his opponent's goal line. Recall from physics that this is a vector. A56's push does push A12 forward. The force by A56 helps A12 from going OB. A12's new vector has been changed to permit himi to stay IB. Tandem buck.

Originally posted by ref18
Stupid dual and double fouls LOL

I am constantly telling myself that dual fb = double bb.