Hs version of jets ko play

[youngump]

Originally Posted by GPC2

Case Book 6.1.8 SITUATION B: The free kick by K1 from K's 40-yard line: (a) is touched by R1 at R's 5 and goes out of bounds at the 8-yard line; or (b) is muffed by R1 at his 15 and then touched by K2 before it rolls out of bounds at R's 10-yard line.......RULING: In (a) and (b) the ball belongs to R at the inbounds spot.

I don't see much difference between the NY Jets play and (a) above. The ball was dead out of bounds as the result of R's action in both plays. What am I missing?

What you're missing is that the ball became out of bounds when it was touched. Since a touch must occur before a player can cause the ball to do anything, the player who touched the ball can't be responsible for the ball being where it is. If he was in bounds as in the case play then immediately following his touch, he gave the ball a new impetus.
________
Prilosec settlements

[Rich]

Originally Posted by youngump

What you're missing is that the ball became out of bounds when it was touched. Since a touch must occur before a player can cause the ball to do anything, the player who touched the ball can't be responsible for the ball being where it is. If he was in bounds as in the case play then immediately following his touch, he gave the ball a new impetus.

I wouldn't say that as by rule that is incorrect. The touch does not provide a new force or impetus. For example, a kick muffed at the 5 that trickles into the endzone is STILL a touchback -- the force is STILL the kick.

The explanation, simply, is that it was touched on the field of play by R and therefore isn't subject to the kickoff out of bounds rule. In the OP's play, the ball is touched out of bounds. It's the same ruling we'd have on a basketball court -- a player with a foot on the boundary touching a ball makes the ball out of bounds, regardless of the location of the ball.

[ajmc]

It's extremely rare that any rule, or any law, can be written to perfectly cover every unrelated situation that can be imagined. The NFHS Book is broken down into 10 separate rules, including Rule 2 that provides certain, specific, definitions.

For example Rule 6 relates to "Kicking the Ball & Fair Catch" while Rule 4 specifically addresses "Ball in Play, Dead Ball and Out of Bounds". Although there is logically an effort to establish some sense of consistency throughout the rules code, specific language used in one section may not exactly apply in all instances to the same language, or intent, established for another section.

Rule 2, "Definitions of Playing Terms" is designed to minimize confusion by limiting certain terms to very specific meanings, but does not intended to limit or specify the meanings of all words used throughout the code. Attempting to extract specific words or phrases from one section of the Rules and apply them to other sections may work in some instances, but then again, may not work at all in other circumstances.

As is often the case, in a variety of borderline circumstances, when logic may support one conclusion equally as well as another, the rule code arbitrarily accepts and establishes one conclusion over others as it may relate, specifically, to address a particular set of circumstances unique to that section of the general rules code.

Then to further complicate things, there are different rules codes (NFHS, NCAA, NFL, Canadian, etc.) that have each evolved over time to address differences unique to their individual environments. As a game, involving severe physical contact, that appeals to participants between the ages of 6 and 60, it makes sense there would be different rules to fit different levels and logic designed to fit one level doesn't always fit others..

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Then to further complicate things, there are different rules codes (NFHS, NCAA, NFL, Canadian, etc.) that have each evolved over time to address differences unique to their individual environments.

A little, but mostly the differences are matters of taste & values. Traditionally NCAA has been more safety-conscious than NFL, and Fed more safety-conscious than NCAA, the idea apparently being that as players get older, more experienced, and fewer, they're selected for more injury resistance. Lately, however, NFL, thinking they have properties to protect, has gotten more safety conscious.

Robert

[ajmc]

It's extremely rare that any rule, or any law, can be written to perfectly cover every unrelated situation that can be imagined. The NFHS Book is broken down into 10 separate rules, including Rule 2 that provides certain, specific, definitions.

For example Rule 6 relates to "Kicking the Ball & Fair Catch" while Rule 4 specifically addresses "Ball in Play, Dead Ball and Out of Bounds". Although there is logically an effort to establish some sense of consistency throughout the rules code, specific language used in one section may not exactly apply in all instances to the same language, or intent, established for another section.

Rule 2, "Definitions of Playing Terms" is designed to minimize confusion by limiting certain terms to very specific meanings, but does not intended to limit or specify the meanings of all words used throughout the code. Attempting to extract specific words or phrases from one section of the Rules and apply them to other sections may work in some instances, but then again, may not work at all in other circumstances.

As is often the case, in a variety of borderline circumstances, when logic may support one conclusion equally as well as another, the rule code arbitrarily accepts and establishes one conclusion over others as it may relate, specifically, to address a particular set of circumstances unique to that section of the general rules code.