The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 10, 2009, 07:18am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bloomington, IL
Posts: 1,319
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?
__________________
Mike Sears
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 10, 2009, 07:39am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesears View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 10, 2009, 12:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesears View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 10, 2009, 01:34pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 10, 2009, 02:49pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bloomington, IL
Posts: 1,319
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.
__________________
Mike Sears
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 10, 2009, 03:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim D. View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 10, 2009, 03:10pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesears View Post
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.

Last edited by Jim D.; Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 03:12pm.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 10, 2009, 03:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdf5 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 10, 2009, 03:27pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdf5 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 11, 2009, 09:49am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim D. View Post
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.

Last edited by ajmc; Sat Apr 11, 2009 at 09:52am.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 11, 2009, 01:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim D. View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 12, 2009, 08:38am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 622
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 12, 2009, 09:24am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdf5 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 12, 2009, 10:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 622
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.

Last edited by kdf5; Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 10:57am.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 12, 2009, 11:51am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdf5 View Post
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.
Don't allow yourself to be swayed by calling a definition "basketball-like", it's just sensible. If that player, who was running OOB leaped into the air before he reached from OOB to pull that runner down, would that make him legal?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
brain dead, illegal participation, play of the day

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A question on a play and a mechanics question. aevans410 Baseball 11 Mon May 12, 2008 09:23am
two questions - start of half question and free throw question hoopguy Basketball 6 Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:12pm
Rule Question and Mechanics Question Stair-Climber Softball 15 Fri May 06, 2005 06:44am
Over the back Question? Sorry mistyped my first question CoaachJF Basketball 15 Thu Feb 27, 2003 03:18pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:39pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1