Another IP question

[mikesears]

1/10 from A's 20-yard line. A32 takes a handoff and heads toward the sideline on the short side of the field. Pulling guard A50, trying to lead block accidentally steps out of bounds at the A-24 yard line. Knowing he went out of bounds, he stays out of bounds. B99 is in pursuit of A32 and as he passes A50, A50 reaches into the field (staying out of bounds) and pulls B99 down to the ground at the A-30 yard line. A32 runs for an apparent touchdown.

Result?

[jaybird]

Originally Posted by mikesears

1/10 from A's 20-yard line. A32 takes a handoff and heads toward the sideline on the short side of the field. Pulling guard A50, trying to lead block accidentally steps out of bounds at the A-24 yard line. Knowing he went out of bounds, he stays out of bounds. B99 is in pursuit of A32 and as he passes A50, A50 reaches into the field (staying out of bounds) and pulls B99 down to the ground at the A-30 yard line. A32 runs for an apparent touchdown.

Result?

IP on A50, enforced 15 yards from the A30.
1/15 @ A15, snap.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by mikesears

1/10 from A's 20-yard line. A32 takes a handoff and heads toward the sideline on the short side of the field. Pulling guard A50, trying to lead block accidentally steps out of bounds at the A-24 yard line. Knowing he went out of bounds, he stays out of bounds. B99 is in pursuit of A32 and as he passes A50, A50 reaches into the field (staying out of bounds) and pulls B99 down to the ground at the A-30 yard line. A32 runs for an apparent touchdown.

Result?

Clearly A50 is guilty of IP. The spot of the foul would be the A-30YL, enforcing the 15 yard penalty would bring the ball back to the A-15 YL, where you'd repeat 1st down, and 15 yards to go to reach the original LTG.

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Clearly A50 is guilty of IP. The spot of the foul would be the A-30YL, enforcing the 15 yard penalty would bring the ball back to the A-15 YL, where you'd repeat 1st down, and 15 yards to go to reach the original LTG.

I have to disagree here. When A50 steps out of bounds, he does not lose his status as a player (he does not become a replaced player or a substitute see (2-32-1). He cannot return inbounds (9-6-1) during the down, but he can interfere or particapate in the play in a legal maner. For example, he could reach over the sideline inbounds and touch a loose ball (causing it to be dead). If he were an eligible receiver, he could knock a pass down, keeping B from an interception. In this play, he could be called for a hold, but he cannot be called for IP unless he returns inbounds.

[mikesears]

So the question is, can a player who is out of bounds commit illegal participation if he stays out of bounds? I think an answer to this question would answer both of the IP posts.

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by mikesears

So the question is, can a player who is out of bounds commit illegal participation if he stays out of bounds? I think an answer to this question would answer both of the IP posts.

And the answer is no. If you read the IP rules, the only way a player (as opposed to a replaced player, subsititue, coach, trainer, etc.) can commit IP is by returning inbounds.

The IP rules cover:
9-6-1 requires returning inbounds
9-6-2 requires returning inbounds
9-6-3 only covers non-players
9-6-4 a requires entering and participating
9-6-4-b only covers injured player
9-6-4-c covers 12 players
9-6-4-d covers pretend sub
9-6-4-e covers deception
9-6-4-f covers deception

As you can see, if a player stays out of bounds and doesn't re-enter, there is no rule that prohibits his involvement in the play.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

I have to disagree here. When A50 steps out of bounds, he does not lose his status as a player (he does not become a replaced player or a substitute see (2-32-1). He cannot return inbounds (9-6-1) during the down, but he can interfere or particapate in the play in a legal maner. For example, he could reach over the sideline inbounds and touch a loose ball (causing it to be dead). If he were an eligible receiver, he could knock a pass down, keeping B from an interception. In this play, he could be called for a hold, but he cannot be called for IP unless he returns inbounds.

But doesn't he "return" when he grabs B99? By the definition of Participation he had an influence on the play.

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by kdf5

But doesn't he "return" when he grabs B99? By the definition of Participation he had an influence on the play.

He is allowed to participate in the play - he is a player remains a player until a sub enters for him. If he retains his status as a player he retains his right to legally participate in the play. The only thing he can't do is return to the field of play. You can't equate "particpating" in the play with returning in bounds -they aren't the same. If he reaches in to bat a ball, knock down a pass or grab B, he is particpating in the play, but he has not returned inbounds by doing it. He might particpate (legal) , he might return inbounds (illegal) or do both, but they aren't the same.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

He is allowed to participate in the play - he is a player remains a player until a sub enters for him. If he retains his status as a player he retains his right to legally participate in the play. The only thing he can't do is return to the field of play.

What if he's wearing an eligible receiver number, waits until the next down (so he's not returning during the down), and returns

1. before the ball is snapped, or
2. after the ball is snapped,

and then runs downfield to catch a pass? Is either a case of simulated substitution, or is it not a feigned substitution procedure unless he was out of bounds close to his team's bench area?

Robert in the Bronx

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by kdf5

But doesn't he "return" when he grabs B99? By the definition of Participation he had an influence on the play.

If you notice how 9-6-2 and 9-6-3 are written, you'll see a difference. 9-6-3, which covers non-players, goes into detail to prohibit hindering an opponent, touching the ball, influencing the play, etc. It's much more restrictive that 9-6-1 and 9-6-2 which only prohibit a player going out and returning. There are no additional restrictions on a player participating.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

If you notice how 9-6-2 and 9-6-3 are written, you'll see a difference. 9-6-3, which covers non-players, goes into detail to prohibit hindering an opponent, touching the ball, influencing the play, etc. It's much more restrictive that 9-6-1 and 9-6-2 which only prohibit a player going out and returning. There are no additional restrictions on a player participating.

JimD, forgive me for sounding harsh, but your assessment seems like a perfect example of how reading way too much into the verbiage of a (any) rule can take a relatively simple, clearly defined principle and try and turn it into total confusion and mush.

Considering the original example, am I correct in understanding you are actually suggesting that, "A50 reaches into the field (staying out of bounds) and pulls B99 down to the ground at the A-30 yard line" is legal because A50 did not step back inside the line before making contact?

If so, I suggest you read section 9.6 of the Case Book, from a perspective of trying to understand what is intended rather than trying to find some incoccuous loophole that exists only in your mind because of your hyper-technical interpretation of the verbiage. As I understand your concept, an offensive player could legally exit the field at one 10 yard line, shadow the runner while OOB (unobstructed of course) down to the other 10 yard line, reach back over the sideline and legally contact a defender pursuing the runner, and be fine as long as he doesn't step back inbounds. (Note: the language of 9.6.1 requiring a player, "blocked OOB by an opponent and returns inbounds during the down, he shall return at the first opportunity", technically only restricts a player blocked OOB)

9.6.1 Situation A "Comment" is really all you need to read, if you reflect on what message the comment is trying to impart, rather than nitpicking the words selected to impart it.

Please, this isn't rocket science and you can't twist it into flying us to the moon.