Hs version of jets ko play

[jontheref]

It hasnt happened to me yet, and it seems that no one has a good answer for me yet. So here it goes. Rember the Jets KO play a couple of weeks ago in which the receiver had one foot on the side line and one on the field of play. In the NFL that is considered a kick out of bounds when the receiver touches the ball which is inbounds. I get that. However, the closest I can find in the fed book is a player who is touching the out of bounds line is out of bounds, and there fore a ball touching him is the same as if it were touching anything else out of bounds. So do we give the Rs the options for a kick out of bounds...or do we give the ball to the receivers at the spot that it was touched. Penalty or not?? Thanks in advance.

[ajmc]

Jon, you need to read the previous answers, although you are answering your own question. "there fore a ball touching him is the same as if it were touching anything else out of bounds", is absolutely correct, and if a free kick touches anything OOB, the free kick is OOB which is a penalty providing the multiple options.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Jon, you need to read the previous answers, although you are answering your own question. "there fore a ball touching him is the same as if it were touching anything else out of bounds", is absolutely correct, and if a free kick touches anything OOB, the free kick is OOB which is a penalty providing the multiple options.

It would, but as discussed here a few weeks ago, once the player steps OOB and "participates" in play, which touching the ball would seem to be....

[grantsrc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

It would, but as discussed here a few weeks ago, once the player steps OOB and "participates" in play, which touching the ball would seem to be....

I think you are getting at illegal participation. The only issue with this is that illegal participation in this fashion only applies to A or K, and in this play he is talking about R.

Free kick OOB is the ruling here.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by grantsrc

I think you are getting at illegal participation. The only issue with this is that illegal participation in this fashion only applies to A or K, and in this play he is talking about R.

Free kick OOB is the ruling here.

I believe R can also be guilty of illegal participation if they INTENTIONALLY go out of bounds and return. You would have to determine they intentionally stepped out of bounds to apply that rule here. I also think you can't call IP because they don't actually return (they are still out of bounds).

[ajmc]

Robert, very often trying to incorporate, or mix multiple, rules into situations that they do not relate to only causes confusion and distorts the logic behind the creation of those rules. The question of when, or whether, the ball is OOB due to the actions of a kicker or a receiver has little, if not absolutely nothing, to do with an Illegal Participation situation in all but the most obscure, imaginative possibility.

Viewing any rule, from a once in a billion, perspective can sometimes be an enjoyable exercise but is far more likely to leave unnecessary confusion and doubt in the minds of many who don't fully understand the "once in a billion" perspective.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I believe R can also be guilty of illegal participation if they INTENTIONALLY go out of bounds and return. You would have to determine they intentionally stepped out of bounds to apply that rule here. I also think you can't call IP because they don't actually return (they are still out of bounds).

I would say that doing as the player on TV did -- leaving one foot OOB and stretching in bounds to touch the ball -- would make it clear the player was intentionally remaining OOB. The moment the player acts in a way that makes clear he's aware and taking advantage of being OOB, I'd say the player has "gone" OOB intentionally. The only question that was argued here was whether touching the ball constituted "return". It certainly fits an intuitive understanding of "participation", which is the label if not the actual wording of the rules provision, and I think it fits the spirit of "illegal participation", which is to not allow players to effectively extend the field for themselves by taking advantage of a boundary.

Robert