KO OOB Play (LSU-FL) Video
 

Video of the much discussed KO OOB play from the LSU-Florida game:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUHdx6KVAQA

News Flash
 

Announcers are idiots.

Hard to tell but looks like the ball might have been possessed before the returner stepped out of bounds.

Did the left foot come down prior to the right foot. I could not tell.

Good pickup as that is apparently what did happen. And if it did, this would NOT be a KO OOB as it was touched by an inbounds player before he went OOB

Not according to NCAA rules.
The officials got it right.

What NCAA rule are you referring to? If it is the recent AR about an airborne player possessing the ball and landing OOB it does not apply if you judge his left foot came down inbounds first

That is the rule. The player was in the act of catching the ball and in doing so landed out of bounds. It is just that simple.

How is he "in the act of catching" when his foot touches inbounds thereby completing the catch?

What does "one foot in bounds" have to do with fielding a free kick? This is not a forward pass. The officials on the field called it out of bounds and the call was upheld upon review.

I was quoting YOU in case you missed it.

What does the call on the field have to do with our view of the video and discussion of the play?

I saw the player possess (or as you would say "catch") the kick in the field of play and then step out of bounds. How do others see this video?

That rule applies to an airborne player who lands first OOB. It does not address one who lands with a left foot down in bounds before hs right foot comes down OOB.

In the act of catching, he "touched" I hope you will agree? And if he "touched" while his left foot was on the ground inbounds, even if his right foot then touched OOB, would you not agree it was touched by B before going OOB?

No, i would rule that he caught the ball out of bounds, since one foot was out of bounds, even if it did not touch in unison with his other foot. Why is this so hard to understand? The officials had no problem seeing it that way.

It does not matter where the ball was "caught" It matters what the status of the player was when he was "touching" the ball. And if he had one foot inbounds and nothing touching out of bounds, he was INBOUNDS. And if he was INBOUNDS and TOUCHING the ball, there can be NO fould for kick OOB

Seems yours is a minority opinion.
In light of what actually happened I wonder how you will explain it if you call it that way.

My guess is that replay will change it.

Do you even know the NCAA rules?

No, it's not. This is a very basic rule. If an inbounds R player touches a kick before the kick goes out of bounds, it is not a foul for free kick out of bounds. Its the same in both Federation and the NCAA.

I do not believe video is conclusive as to what happened here, so it is based upon the judgment of the official on the field.

Mike, was this play reviewed? I didn't see this part of the game.

I think that answer is obvious.

The first foot was inbounds and the ball was touched by the Team B player, therefore is should not be a foul. Was the ball touched? Yes. Was that player who touched the ball inbounds? Yes.

Below is the rule copied and pasted from the NCAA rules. As you can see the ball must be UNTOUCHED (not touched) by team B. In this play it was touched.

SECTION 2. Free Kick Out of Bounds
Kicking Team
ARTICLE 1. A free kick out of bounds between the goal lines untouched by an
inbounds player of Team B is a foul.

Sme strange things on this play. #1 - The deep official (L) flagged it as a kick OOB However, the returner's back was to him and the ball was caught in front of the receiver so there is no way the deep guy knew when the ball was actually tocuhed. The F who was looking straight at it from in front of the returner did not flag. In all fairness, he was considerably further away than the L but he is the only one who would have been able to assess where the returner's feet were when he first touched the ball.

#2 - LSU lined up and was going to run a play but took so long they got a dela of game penalty. The UF coach had been going nuts all during the time form when flag was thrown for the kick OOB until the flag was thrown for delay. He then decided to challenge the call so game was stopped for the replay. Replay "confirmed the call on the field"

The point I am trying to make is not on this specific play it is on the concept of whether or not a kick should be declared OOB if the "catch" is not completed until the player is OOB. I say, if you are able to judge that the player had a foot inbounds when he first touches the ball, but then he completes the catch and steps with other foot OOB, it is NOT a kick OOB.

The video I have seen on this specific play does not clearly show whether the left foot was on the ground or not when the ball came into the receiver's cradled arms. I would sure like to know what the F saw.

I don't thing they ruled the first foot inbounds. I think they ruled both feet off the ground.

SECTION 2. Free Kick Out of Bounds
Kicking Team—ARTICLE 1
Approved Ruling 6-2-1

[snip]

IV. Airborne B17 has leaped from inbounds and is the first player to
touch Team A’s free kick when he receives the ball. He subsequently
lands out of bounds with the ball in his possession. RULING: Foul,
free kick out of bounds. Team B has these options: it may accept a
five-yard penalty at the previous spot with Team A re-kicking; snap
the ball at its 40-yard line at the inbounds spot (assuming the free
kick was from the 30-yard line); or snap the ball at the inbounds spot
five yards from where the ball crossed the sideline.

The returner pretty clearly "skipped" and was completly airborne at one point. The issue is: 1 - Did both feet come to ground at same time or did left come to ground before right? 2 - when the ball was first being touched by the returner was he airborne or was his left foot on the ground?

It is clear the right foot did not come to ground until he was in possession. What is not clear is the status of the left foot and that is critical IMHO

We know how you would rule.

How do you square that with what actually happened?

By "what actually happened" do you mean what they ruled and how they handled or do you mean what really happened, regardless of how it was ruled?

I cannot tell you what they ruled because I still do not know why the F had no flag (even though he was the only one who could see ball and feet at the same time). I know what the L ruled and what the R did based on that but have no idea what input, if any, the F had.

I also do not know what views the replay official had. If all he had was what we at home had, there is NO WAY he could "confirm" the call on the field.

We talked about this last night at our college study group and general consensus was this was a valid call. It was so close that ruling he had possession with one foot down and then put the other foot down was being too technical. If he had caught the ball and then took a step to get his other foot out of bounds, then it would have been LSU's ball at the spot.

I think you can make valid arguments either way but I lean toward the call the officials made.

I think that is exactly the right interpretation.

So if this was a pass you would rule incompletion as opposed to completion/interception?

The thing that I really do not understand on this specific play is the L, who has absolutely NO view of the ball, making the call over the F who had feet and ball.

That doesn't make sense to me. With the amount of detail insant replay examines, it would seem that the the technical details in situations such as this matter now more than ever.

This play was similar to one of my favorite "IBM Presents: You Make the Call" segments. They showed a kick returner catching a kickoff while straddling the sideline, then taking off up field. As my dad and I discussed whether the ball should be placed at the 1 (where he caught it) or where he was tackled, the announcer came back from commercial to say it was a kick-off out of bounds and the kicking team re-kicked.

I don't remember whether they specified NFL or NCAA rules, and as a soccer guy I don't know enough of the football rule book to know if it makes a difference.

Does anybody else remember these commercials?

Just me, then?

OK.

It wasn't a pass, it was a free kick. And the position of the ball is irrelevant because the player was ruled out of bounds when he caught the ball.

I remember those commericals. ALCOA was the sponsor and they were in NFL games.

Are you saying a pass is different than a free kick when it comes to touching and catching it?

What made the player "out of bounds when he caught the ball"?

I think Mike's point is - how can an official who can not see the ball rule on whether the ball was possessed before the player touched out of bounds?

Because catching the ball was irrelevant.
The question was was the ball out of bounds? The official only needed to see the receiving team touch the ball and judge if he was in bounds or out of bounds. His ruling was out of bounds and it was confirmed by replay.

I think you need to review the play and listen to the explanation given by Gary Danielson who relayed information supplied to him by an official in the press box. That was pretty clear.

And so that official has x-ray vision which allowed him to see through the returner's back to see when he touched the ball?

There does not seem to be much left to debate.
You simply do not acknowledge what the officials on the field ruled nor accept that the replay official agreed with their ruling.