During an attempted onside kick from its 40-yard line, the ball bounces into the air. As the ball is airborne, near R's 49 yard line, K2 jumps and controls the ball at R's 48 yard line. Prior to coming to the ground, K2 is pushed out of bounds where the recovery is completed. In the covering official's opinion, K2 would have landed inbounds.
What's the ruling?

Canadian Ruling
 

In Canada, the kick-off line is the 45 (because we have 110 yard fields). The restraining zone extends to centre-ice, the 55.

Therefore, this is equivalent to K2 while airborne, controlling the ball at the R53. This is a legal recovery by K (greater than 10 yards from point of kick-off). The official's judgment that R's contact pushed K to land OB when K would have landed IB follows the same philosophy as a pass receiver being pushed OB. It is a legal and successful kick recovery, K-1D/10 @ R-48.

I think we better think about it a little more.

By definition (rule 2) an airborne player has completed a recovery when he first contacts the ground inbounds with the ball in his possession.

This K player did not contact the gound inbounds.

In the definition section for a Catch, very similar words exists but with the addition of the words or contacted by an opponent in such a way that he is prevented from returning to the ground inbounds ... .

Makes me wonder if those words were ommitted from the recovery definition by design or oversite.

I'm going with free kick OOB for now.

I agree with Theisey - flag for free kick OOB at the spot where it crosses the sideline.

If the kick is in flight, then 2-4-1 allows a catch when the player is pushed out by an opponent, 6-1-5 gives the ball to K at the spot of the catch.

I agree Theisey, free kick OOB's.

It does not meet the defition of a catch cuz a catch involves "possession of a live ball which is <b>in flight</b>..." we have a grounded kick in this case.

A recovery is "gaining possession of a live ball after it strikes the ground. An airborn player has completed a recovery when eh first contacts the ground inbounds with the ball in his possession."

Kick out of bounds. The ball was recovered not caught.

REPLY: Agree...the player never completed his recovery. The result is a free kick OOB. The contact by an opponent is immaterial.

This may be a stupid question, but, has the ball touched the ground? If it hasn't, I'm flagging for kick-catch interference.

Ya, he said the ball bounces into the air, so the kicker did one of those driving down into the ground onside kicks which then bounce high.

Oh, I see. Thanks MJT.

OK, so if he gets pushed out at the sideline, it's free kick OOB. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that K1 leaps into the air about 5 yards inbounds from the sideline. R1 catches K1 before he touches the ground and carries him out of bounds. Whaddyagot?

Caught and carried= Catch. He would've come down inbounds.

Now, back to the original situation, one thing that is important to keep in mind here is the direction the player is heading and the direction of the push. It the push changes the direction the player was heading, then you have a catch. If the push doesn't change direction, then you have no catch. 7.5.2L

Technically the recovery isn't complete until he touches the ground. However, I'm ruling that the ball is dead inbounds because forward progress has been stopped* - K's ball 1/10.

* So what if K may not advance on this play? 4-2-2a makes no reference to that - it kills the play any time forward progress has been stopped.

REPLY: However...4-2-2a refers to a "runner" which by definition is a player "in possession" of a live ball. "Possession" requires that he is handed the ball or he has "caught" or "recovered" it. "Recovery" requires that he first contact the ground inbounds. There is no 'exception' which allows you to rule a recovery because an opponent's contact stopped his forward progress like there is with a "catch." Therefore, he has not "recovered" the ball; he's not in "possession" of a live ball; he's not a "runner" and 4-2-2a can't apply. I believe that technically you still have a free kick OOB. I don't necessarily like it, but I think that would be the correct ruling.

How is "caught and carried" any different from the original sitch. In the original sitch, he woulda come down inbounds as well if he hadn't been hit.

REPLY: W&S...From the way I read both the original situation and the one that you proposed, the kick had already hit the ground so 'catching' it is no longer possible. In the situation you proposed, I thought you meant the the R player 'caught' the team K player as opposed to catching the ball. Did I read that incorrectly?

[Edited by Bob M. on Aug 11th, 2005 at 02:27 PM]

Yes, I was saying that the R player caught the K player, and carried him out of bounds.

I still go with theisey and Bob M. and the definition of recovery. The only way he recovers the ball is if he comes down inbounds and there's no allowance in the rule for being carried or pushed out. There's no forward progress because he's not in possession. He has to contact the ground. I say you still have a free kick OOB.

Gah! This is what I get for taking any word in the book for granted, even a supposedly obvious one like "runner."

But... *looks crafty* I could (but probably shouldn't) argue that the guy with the ball in midair is, in some way, "simulating possession of a live ball" which makes him a runner. So forward progress works.

Now, I know that this is certainly not the intent of the "simulating" phrase in 2-30-13. But flagging this as a free kick OOB when the guy is literally carried 5 yards to the sideline just doesn't sit right. Of course, it'd never happen anyway. But it'd be nice if there were a term in the rule book for a player who has the ball, but has not established possession yet.