NFHS Follow-up on KO OOB
 

A) If R1 is straddling the line, one foot in and one foot out, and he catches the KO, while the ball is completely "over" in-bounds territory, my understanding of FED rules is that it does not matter. Touching proceeds catching so the instance R1 touches the KO, it is out of bounds, and since at that instant, the ball has not been possessed, then the kick has not ended. Thus, I'm thinking we have a free-kick that has not ended but is now OOB. Penalty on K... correct?

B) Similar but different: With a free kick bouncing in bounds near the side lines, could R step out of bounds, intentionally or unintentionally, and touch the grounded in-bounds ball to cause the penalty on K? I'm thinking that's a true statement.

Correct in A.

In B, could we possibly have illegal participation? The rule says that "no player shall intentionally go out of bounds and return." Does that mean he has to step back into the field of play, or does reaching over and touching the ball count as returning?

Thanks for the input.

In B, I think you are correct, IP. When I was thinking about this "what if" play, I did not consider that.

If you're objective is to consider the technical application of a rule to answer a question, as in situation B, IP may be a highly technical answer, but if you're concerned about how to administer such a situation in real life, declaring the ball dead at the spot is the practical application.

In situation B, the receiver can step out UNintentionally. No player of A or K can step out and return and no player can intentionally step out and return (9-6-1, and 2).

No doubt about it. Real game: mark it, set the chains and give my R the "start on the snap" signal. (An Ump in proper position should never see this anyway.)

I just like challenging myself with those technical situations every so often.

Thanks to all that replied.

I'd say touching the ball is at least within the spirit of "participation", and so should be considered "return" in this case. I could easily see cases where the player could make obvious it was an intentional play, so this is not just theoretic.

Robert