NF: Illegal Participation

[DJ_NV]

If a non-player comes onto the field during the down and does not impact the actual play in progress/runner/defense, but does get in the way of a wing official in that the official either contacts or has to obviously move around the non-players, is this technically "influencing" the play in that it may cause the official to be out of position and therefore possibly not able to accurately rule on the play and therefore be a live-ball, basic-spot foul instead of a succeeding spot UC foul as in 9-8-1-i?

thanks

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by DJ_NV

If a non-player comes onto the field during the down and does not impact the actual play in progress/runner/defense, but does get in the way of a wing official in that the official either contacts or has to obviously move around the non-players, is this technically "influencing" the play in that it may cause the official to be out of position and therefore possibly not able to accurately rule on the play and therefore be a live-ball, basic-spot foul instead of a succeeding spot UC foul as in 9-8-1-i?

thanks

CANADIAN RULING:

0-yard ejection foul.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by DJ_NV

If a non-player comes onto the field during the down and does not impact the actual play in progress/runner/defense, but does get in the way of a wing official in that the official either contacts or has to obviously move around the non-players, is this technically "influencing" the play in that it may cause the official to be out of position and therefore possibly not able to accurately rule on the play and therefore be a live-ball, basic-spot foul instead of a succeeding spot UC foul as in 9-8-1-i?

That maybe the world's longest run-on sentence.

My head hurts.

[MJT]

You seem to be wanting to go with rule 9-6-3 on IP. That is a tough sell I think. It will be interesting to hear others thoughts, but I would lean towards no.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

That maybe the world's longest run-on sentence.

My head hurts.

DITTO!

[Bob M.]

REPLY: I'm with MJT. I think it's a stretch to look to 'upgrade' this to IP because of inadvertent contact with the official. He didn't influence the play at all.

[DJ_NV]

Ok good. I didn't think that this was the intent of the rule and a 15 yard succeeding spot foul should probably get the job done as far as sending a message. thanks

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Personally, I think this should be left the 5-yd illegal substitution penalty it deserves. The fact that he somehow interfered with the official is not that significant unless there was an obvious intent to impede or contact the official. If it was inadvertent, let it go at the 5-yd penalty. JMO