Another potential Illegal Participation play

[jhumm]

Great play. Should have read it closer. Sorry for the obvious answer. I can't think of anything specific in the NFHS rule book, but it does seem like an illegal play.

[l3will]

K99 is out of bounds ...k99 remained out of bounds ... so here goes without rule reference or books.

1. K99 bats ball while ball is in bounds... illegal participation (he participated in the play by batting a live ball in the field of play)
2. K99 bats ball while ball is out of bounds or while kick is in the air above the sideline... ball is dead because the ball is out of bounds. R's ball at the out of bounds
spot.

[wisref2]

Originally Posted by l3will

K99 is out of bounds ...k99 remained out of bounds ... so here goes without rule reference or books.

1. K99 bats ball while ball is in bounds... illegal participation (he participated in the play by batting a live ball in the field of play)
2. K99 bats ball while ball is out of bounds or while kick is in the air above the sideline... ball is dead because the ball is out of bounds. R's ball at the out of bounds
spot.

For #1 - he has the legal right to touch the ball. He is still a player, and any player may recover a loose ball. No different than a player sliding out of bound trying to recover the ball then touching it while he was out of bounds.

[l3will]

My thinking is that K99 chose to go out of bounds and he chose to stay out
of bounds... when he reaches back in to the field of play while still standing
out of bounds he violates the spirit of the rule. 9-6-2.

So what would you do... declare it dead at the one even though the kick would have crossed the goal line.?

Great play for thought...

I'd might even invoke 9-9-1...
A player or nonplayer or person not subject to the rules shall not hinder play
by an unfair act which has no specific coverage. In this case probably declare
it a touchback .

My thought, your opinion may vary

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by l3will

I'd might even invoke 9-9-1...
A player or nonplayer or person not subject to the rules shall not hinder play
by an unfair act which has no specific coverage.

I think to be an "unfair act", it has to be uncontroversially unfair, not just a questionable loophole that people would argue about. Other rule books refer to "obviously unfair" and "palpably unfair" (the original wording in the NCAA rules from which the USAn codes derived) acts, but I don't think Fed's omission of such a qualifier was meant to give the referee more leeway.

Robert

[l3will]

My preference would be to sell illegal participation in this case since K99 was
out of bounds a long time and took himself out of the play and by touching
the ball in the field of play... he participated.

2-30 Participation - Participation is any act or action by a player or non-player that has an influence on the play.

As I said, your opinion may vary

You may not agree until the lawyers at NFHS cover this situation explicitly,
but that is what I think.

You may award the ball to R at the one yard line, but I think that might be a
harder sell if the kick was clearly bouncing toward the goal line.

[Mike L]

Regarding the unfair question....are you going to allow R to block this guy while he's OOB? Because if you don't, you've given this player a free run down the field to make a play.