Another IP question
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? |
Quote:
1/15 @ A15, snap. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Robert in the Bronx |
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.
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
It would make him superman.:rolleyes:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Canadian Ruling
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. |
Quote:
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? |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:08pm. |