Another IP question

[daggo66]

It would make him superman.

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

My goodness! I was not trying to find some innocuous loophole using hyper-technical interpretations. I was just trying to figure out if a player who steps out of bounds can touch a ball that's still inbounds without penalty. Say if a player steps out in diving for a fumble, but manages to touch a ball that's still inbounds or perhaps reaches back to bat a pass that's still inbounds, is that IP? Even reading the comments in the Case Book 9-6, I think he can do it legally.

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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

Yes, then you're in the pretending substition rules. It is illegal on that basis.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

My goodness! I was not trying to find some innocuous loophole using hyper-technical interpretations. I was just trying to figure out if a player who steps out of bounds can touch a ball that's still inbounds without penalty. Say if a player steps out in diving for a fumble, but manages to touch a ball that's still inbounds or perhaps reaches back to bat a pass that's still inbounds, is that IP? Even reading the comments in the Case Book 9-6, I think he can do it legally.

Hold on Jim, you've got apples and oranges going on here. Your first example was questioning the legality of a player who, "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", which is near the opposite end of the spectrum to, "a player steps out in diving for a fumble, but manages to touch a ball that's still inbounds or perhaps reaches back to bat a pass that's still inbounds".

There is (almost) always a problem when you try and apply a, "one size fits all" approach to hypothetical situations at opposite ends of the spectrum. I believe that is partially the reason NFHS rules rely, as often as they do, on the judgment (common sense and logic) of field officials to deal with a wide range of "unique" situations.

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Hold on Jim, you've got apples and oranges going on here. Your first example was questioning the legality of a player who, "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", which is near the opposite end of the spectrum to, "a player steps out in diving for a fumble, but manages to touch a ball that's still inbounds or perhaps reaches back to bat a pass that's still inbounds".

There is (almost) always a problem when you try and apply a, "one size fits all" approach to hypothetical situations at opposite ends of the spectrum. I believe that is partially the reason NFHS rules rely, as often as they do, on the judgment (common sense and logic) of field officials to deal with a wide range of "unique" situations.

In the case where A50 pulls down B99, it's illegal because it's a hold or illegal use of the hands. A50 can't do that whether he's inbounds or out of bounds. I agree it's illegal because it's an illegal act. I don't believe it's illegal participation though.

The question remains, if an offensive player goes out of bounds (not blocked out), how much is allowed to do?

We know he retains his status as a player (rule 2-32).

We know he retains his status as an eligible receiver (7-5-6-d)

We know he cannot return inbounds during the down (9-6-1).

However the question is on how much can he influence, hinder or touch the play inbounds assuming he doesn't come back in bounds? I don't find any additional restrictions on his ability to legally do any of those things. In other words, if he could legally touch a pass before he went out of bounds, he retains the ability to legally touch an inbounds pass while he is out of bounds. I don't think I'm stretching the rules at all.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

However the question is on how much can he influence, hinder or touch the play inbounds assuming he doesn't come back in bounds? I don't find any additional restrictions on his ability to legally do any of those things. In other words, if he could legally touch a pass before he went out of bounds, he retains the ability to legally touch an inbounds pass while he is out of bounds. I don't think I'm stretching the rules at all.

Isn't "how much" a question that applies to just about every rule? The answer is usually found in the judgment of the covering official, based on what he actually observed, which may or may not be a complete view of the action.

As for a player, eligible to touch a pass before going OOB, being able to touch a pass, thats inbounds, after he went OOB, legality seems dependent on the, "what, where, why and under what circumstances", the touching occured, which would be unique to the play in question.

[dumbref]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

In the case where A50 pulls down B99, it's illegal because it's a hold or illegal use of the hands. A50 can't do that whether he's inbounds or out of bounds. I agree it's illegal because it's an illegal act. I don't believe it's illegal participation though.

The question remains, if an offensive player goes out of bounds (not blocked out), how much is allowed to do?

We know he retains his status as a player (rule 2-32).

We know he retains his status as an eligible receiver (7-5-6-d)

We know he cannot return inbounds during the down (9-6-1).

However the question is on how much can he influence, hinder or touch the play inbounds assuming he doesn't come back in bounds? I don't find any additional restrictions on his ability to legally do any of those things. In other words, if he could legally touch a pass before he went out of bounds, he retains the ability to legally touch an inbounds pass while he is out of bounds. I don't think I'm stretching the rules at all.

Jim,

I can’t refute anything you have stated the way the rules are written. But I also believe you are pointing out the holes in the rules that violate the spirit of the rule. I think a player blocking (legal or illegally) from OOB violates the spirit of the rule. By the same token, I do not think the simple act of returning to the field, without effecting the play, necessarily violates the spirit of the rule. I doubt seriously you would flag A99 for returning during the down if the play was twenty yards beyond him. It may be time to take a serious look at the verbiage of 9-6 and clean it up.

With the tweak in OPI, I also think it’s time to re-think pass eligibility in 7-5-6d. If an A player voluntarily steps OOB, he should become ineligible. If he touches a pass it becomes illegal touching. Illegal touching would have to be expanded to include any loose ball situation for that player.

If he contacts or influences a player (whether he returns or not), it should be IP. Now, the spot where he returned may still be the enforcement spot (bag it) and it may require a special enforcement (like we don’t have any), but it should not be a foul until he does something to effect the play and more specifically a player.

[wwcfoa43]

This is where the Canadian version is perhaps better worded since its code set stipulates that a player who leaves the field of play (with exceptions) must not participate further in the play.

This is probably better than prohibiting returning because (a) it covers the fact that in some cases we want the player to return (to get out of the opponent's bench area!) and (b) we don't want him to affect the play after going out.

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by wwcfoa43

This is where the Canadian version is perhaps better worded since its code set stipulates that a player who leaves the field of play (with exceptions) must not participate further in the play.

This is probably better than prohibiting returning because (a) it covers the fact that in some cases we want the player to return (to get out of the opponent's bench area!) and (b) we don't want him to affect the play after going out.

It seems like it would solve all of the issues we've been discussing in this and the other thread.

Has it presented enforcement problems in that you would have a player legally on the field who cannot participate in the play?