2nd and 5 on A's 45 yard line. A56 is leading ball carrier A12 on a sweep around the right end. B50 contacts A56 and pushes him out of bounds, but B50 loses his balance and falls down. A12 tries to hurdle the prone B50, but stumbles and just about goes out of bounds when A56, who has both feet out of bounds, pushes A12 to keep him from going out of bounds. A12 maintains his balance and continues down the sideline to score a touchdown.

What have you got?

Canadian Ruling
 

Tandem Buck.

Re: Canadian Ruling
 

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?)

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.

Now I'm away in a hotel room now, and I don't have my rule book with me, so I'll check on this when I get home tomorrow, but those are just my thoughts, anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I'm still trying to differenciate the football from the basketball in my head ;)

Stupid dual and double fouls LOL:D

2-28 Out of bounds -
Art 1 - A player or other person is out of bounds when any part of the person is touching anything other than another player or game official who is on or outside the sideline oe end line.
art 2 - a ball in player possession is out of bounds when the runner or the ball touches anything other than another player or game official who is on or outside the sideline oe end line.
art 3 - A loose ball is out of bounds when it touches anything including a player or game official, who is out of bounds.

I'm agreement with cowbyfan1. It's a dead ball OOB and the clock will not start until the next snap. Additionally, A56 is permitted to return inbounds but must do so at his first opportunity (becuase he was pushed out).

The only way A56 can be charged with IP is if he delayed is return and later came back inbounds. He's still a player so even if he delayed and never returned I can't find a rule where he couldn't even try to block an opponent who was running near the sideline in pursuit of A12. I'm thinking this would be some kind of a foul but I can't find a rule that prohibits him from doing this. It's definitely not IP because he's still a player. This sounds like it should be a foul but can't find a rule that prohibits this action.

I could be wrong, but I don't think cowbyfan was trying to say A12 was OOB, just giving the out of bounds definition. Additionally, based on the definition, A56 was OOB, but A12 was not OOB just by touching him (as per 2-28-1).

Now, that having been said, this very likely could be "helping the runner" (Fed. rule 9-1).

The runner is not out of bounds - the definition makes that pretty clear. However, NF 9-1 reads: "An offensive player shall not push, pull or lift the runner to assist his forward progress."

I will admit that this is only my interpretation, but I would say that pushing the runner to keep him inbounds is an assist to his forward progress, and should draw a flag for helping the runner. Whether I would have the presence of mind to throw it if this actually happened, that I'm not so sure of.

From your position on the field, you'd better not throw that. :)

PSU213, I stand corrected. 2.28.2 clearly says "other than" which for some reason I ignored. The ball remains live...my bad.

Hey, it doesn't say "Roamin'" for nothing!

Actually, the handle is a holdover from my baseball days - I spend most of my time on the wings. Even still, I figure this is probably going to be the R's call - probably much easier to see if you're trailing the play.

I moved from the wing to umpire last year. I'd really like to "roam" back over to the sideline. :(

Since A56 has not come back inbounds he doesn't fit the "illegal participation" definition for that foul. Like a couple of previous posters, I thought about the "helping the runner" aspect, and from an intent standpoint, I think that applies. What bothers me is that I think this play also gets to the intent of the illegal participation foul, in that the "player" (albeit still out of bounds), "participated" in the play. A56 certainly "participated" in the play.

Question: What's the reason that "players" are excluded in the "out of bounds" definition in 2-28-1? I can see why game officials are excluded.

REPLY: Players are excluded to to keep the ball alive if the runner is touched by a <u>defensive</u> player who happens to be touching out of bounds when he contacts the runner.

I think the only thing you might have would be helping the runner. The runner is not out of bounds by touching the player who is.
It's interesting to think about a player who is out of bounds participating in the play, though. A player who is forced out of bounds can participate if he returns at his earliest opportunity. In this case, the player has not yet returned inbounds, but still materially participated.
I don't think this is an IP foul.

But, just to add to this, what if A56 threw a block on a defensive player coming down the sideline before returning inbounds? I can't find a rule that prevents this. Rule 9-6 does not address this. 9-6-3 says "No replaced player or substitute shall hinder an opponent, touch the ball, influence the play, or otherwise participate."
A56 does not meet this definition, so no IP in either case.

I'd like to hear some thoughts on this.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Re: Canadian Ruling
 

That is your basketball training.

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.

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