Another IP question

[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

[kdf5]

I understand your thoughts on his player status and how it relates to 9-6. I find the phrase "and return" to be much more nebulous than "touching". If he reaches into the field of play and drags down another player then he has returned and has influenced the play while doing so from out of bounds.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by kdf5

I understand your thoughts on his player status and how it relates to 9-6. I find the phrase "and return" to be much more nebulous than "touching". If he reaches into the field of play and drags down another player then he has returned and has influenced the play while doing so from out of bounds.

Are you suggesting that sometimes the common sense understanding of a word's meaning can expand it's purpose beyond a strict interpretation of it's litteral presentation? Nebulous is neither a straight, nor bright line.

[kdf5]

I've never said there isn't room for interpretation. I'm saying there are a number of ways a player can return and reaching into the field of play while standing OB and dragging a player down is certainly one, but there's either touching or not and no precedent as to the basketball-like definition of out of bounds in football. Peace.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.