Hs version of jets ko play
 

:confused: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.

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....

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).

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.

Seems to me that this would be R's ball at the inbounds spot - no penalty. The ball was in the field of play - the R player was out of bounds, hence R caused the ball to be out of bounds, not K.

That would make sense but that's not how it is defined by rule. I don't have my rule books with me but as I recall a few things come to mind. Touching preceeds possession so the ball was dead as soon as R touched it. The ball touching anything out of bounds is out of bounds and the action that caused the ball to go out of bounds is K's kick. Someone else can probably articulate this better than me.

In the past, I believe we had a case book play to support this ruling. I believe the case book play was deleted and we no longer have support for ruling it this way.

Bingo. Both the Federation and the Redding Guide changed their interpretations of this play this year.

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

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

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.

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..