Play: A1 runs a route near the sideline. The ball is thrown high. The player stops, adjusts his feet, leaps and catches the ball. While adjusting his feet, he inadvertently steps on the sideline. NF 9-1-6 defines this as Illegal Participation.

Question 1 - Is it different under NCAA?
Question 2 - Are there others that find this way too server for a player that is trying to make a play?

Question 1 -- I don't know

Question 2 -- Rules are rules.

REPLY: For question #1, the NCAA rules state that the receiver who stepped OOB loses his eligibility when he does so. Therefore, this play would result in a flag for illegal touching with loss of down at the previous spot. So in essence, it will look like an incomplete pass when all is said and done. For question #2, I think it's a bit severe. I like the NCAA rule.

Yes it is different under NCAA rules. If he is first to touch it, he has commited illegal touching. Similar to the NFL rule.


Yes, but that is how the NF wants it.

Clinics will tell you that the LETTER of the law is as you describe, but the INTENT of the rule is to keep receivers from exiting the field and reentering. I know no official who would call this IP if the receiver first went out of bounds while the ball was already en route to him.

What would you call then? If the pass was incomplete and the receiver just stepped on the line, I can see overlooking that. However, if the pass is complete, you can't give him the catch especially if it happens on the opponents sideline. It is a harsh penalty if its inadvertent, but what other choice to we have?

Incomplete.

I would agree that this is a very severe penalty in this circumstance, but it is spelled out very clearly in the rules. If the "powers that be" thought this to be a bad rule, then I would think it would not be that difficult to change it. I stronly agree with ad./disad., and the A player probably did not gain an advantage by his actions, but as I said before, things are pretty clear in this case.

Letter vs Intent. But do what you want.

And you overestimate the ease of changing a rule in FED.

I guess I'm getting a little tired of the idea of "doing what you want" (and please don't give the example of a hold away from the play). Also, I don't think I am underestimating how difficult it is to change a rule. I understand they do not change rules on a whim, but if the rule makers found this particular part of the rule to be blatently unfair, I'm guessing there would be at least some talk about changing it (not that I am in the know, but I have not heard anything).

REPLY: If the ball is caught, and the receiver clearly lands inbounds, how are you ever going to sell an 'incomplete' call? Just curious...

Please be advised, the following is a dramazation.

A88 is running up the sideline and steps out of bounds at the B25 and then makes a beautiful diving catch at the B17 and 2 yards in from the sideline. What.....the LJ MCROWDER is signalling the pass incomplete...what game is this guy watching, that was a spectacular catch by A88! Look out, the fans are starting to throw things from the stands, the benches clear.... Let's take another look at this play on the DigiTron.

Just kidding with you mcrowder, I have the utmost respect for your posts. But seriously, how whould you handle this play if you didn't have a flag down? There's no way to communicate to the fans on why you ruled incomplete and if the opposing coach is rules savvy, he'll know he's getting the short straw.

If the receiver and defender are anywhere near each other, you could rule the receiver was forced out, if not, you could tell the coach you were watching the ball and the receiver's eyes and you didn't see anyone step on the line. You can't call what you don't see.
Moose's axiom: They seldom remember you for what you DON'T call.

Maybe I was envisioning the initial post differently than the majority, but I don't believe the player in question ran EIGHT yards after stepping out of bounds in that sitch. I agree with you that in the dramatization you posted, the player who stepped out and came back would be flagged.

I was probably too short in my posts as well. Ah well - new job, extra busy, shouldn't be on line trying to stay up to date here anyway... :)

I envisioned a player standing near the sideline turning, stepping out of bounds with one foot, jumping up, and catching it in the same position. Incomplete. (And here's where I was too short). If instead you meant an inbounds player barely touching out of bounds while turning, while the ball is coming to him, jumping, and landing in bounds, I probably have a complete pass. This is based solely on what I've heard at a clinic, regarding the intent of the rules. As it was explained, the intent of this rule is to keep players from going out of bounds (where a defender should know he no longer has to guard him), and coming back to catch a pass.

I will, however, discuss this with some of the more experienced guys I get to work with next week, and will repost if I misunderstood the clinic, or am told the clinic was misguiding me in this situation.

Thanks for the responses. The conversation went exactly as I suspected. Some interpreting the the rule and some strictly enforcing the rule. Some saying what else can we do?

I think this forum could act as a strong voice in making changes to the rules. Imagine a group of officials going to the rule committee representative in Alabama requesting a change. And a group in NJ, CA, TX, GA, FL, … asking for the same change. I am not a politician, but I do understand the strength of numbers and especially from all areas of the country.

Bob M. may even get rule support for interpretations!