Reddings guide illegal participation

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by ppaltice

I don't agree with this statement.

A player who is stepping on the sideline and the field of play is out of bounds. If he was previously running down the sideline out of bounds and takes one step in the field of play while maintaining contact with the sideline, he is still out of bounds. He has also returned to the field may be susceptable to IP by rule.

A player is either out of bounds or not out of bounds (which is not the same as in bounds). A player who returns to the field of play can do so while still remaining out of bounds. An airborne player who is not touching anything cannot be out of bounds by rule.

Instead of devising a rule set based on what you think it should be, why don't you use the rules that NF provides?

Unfortunately, the NF rules have a "hole" here - they do not define what "inbounds" is, nor do they give the status of a player who is airborne. We can assume, reason and speculate on the status, but this play will remain the subject of arguement and discussion until the NF either revises the rules or provides an official interpretation on their website or in one of their publications.

What's the record for posts on one topic?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

until the NF either revises the rules or provides an official interpretation on their website or in one of their publications.

Well there was an NF casebook play up through 2003 that said an airborne player previously touching out of bounds was not out of bounds. There has been no rule change, editorial change or retraction published by the NF.

On something this fundamental, that is good enough for me.

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Well there was an NF casebook play up through 2003 that said an airborne player previously touching out of bounds was not out of bounds. There has been no rule change, editorial change or retraction published by the NF.

On something this fundamental, that is good enough for me.

I'd love to see it. That might settle it if someone still had the case play.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by waltjp

FED Case Book (2002)

9.6.1 Sit D

Wide receiver A1 runs a pass route along the sideline. He takes two steps out of bounds and goes airborne. While in the air he: (a) bats the ball to A2 who catches the ball; or (b) catches the ball and lands inbounds; or (c) catches the ball and lands out of bounds.

Ruling:

In (a) and (b), the ball remains live and the catch is legal. A1 was not out of bounds when he touched the pass, however, he is guilty of illegal participation in both (a) and (b). In (c), the ball is dead and there is no catch or foul. (2-4-1; 2-28; 4-3)

Originally posted by Walt in another thread. This CB play was also in the 2003 casebook and is the foundation for the Redding Guide play that started all of this.

[Jim D.]

In the original post, the question was - receiver A 83 who runs along sideline takes two steps out of bounds and jumps while in air and bats the ball to A87 inbounds who catches the ball and then A83 returns to the ground out of bounds - is A83 guilty of illegal particpation?

Per the Case Book, in (a) and (b), A83 is guilty of illegal participation so the play gets called back. He was not out of bounds when he touched the pass, however, he is guilty of illegal participation.

I'm not going to go back and read all 145 posts, but I do beleive there were some who were saying this play was legal.

So while the catch was legal and the bat was legal, the touching was IP so the play comes back, correct?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

I'm not going to go back and read all 145 posts, but I do beleive there were some who were saying this play was legal.

So while the catch was legal and the bat was legal, the touching was IP so the play comes back, correct?

Here is the other point of contention. The current Redding Guide case play goes into more detail than the 2003 CB play did. I am focusing more on the airborne player being out of bounds or not angle.