Player running OOB

[Illini_Ref]

A little twist.

B3 runs OOB, does not come back in, but as a pass nears the sideline, he jumps, bats the pass down, and lands OOB.

I can't be Illegal Participation because he never returned to the field of play during the down. He is still defined as a player because he was one of 22 who started the down. Could he be flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct for leaving the field of play without authorization to gain an advantage? That is all I can find.

[patalia]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

A little twist.

B3 runs OOB, does not come back in, but as a pass nears the sideline, he jumps, bats the pass down, and lands OOB.

I can't be Illegal Participation because he never returned to the field of play during the down. He is still defined as a player because he was one of 22 who started the down. Could he be flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct for leaving the field of play without authorization to gain an advantage? That is all I can find.

I don't recall there being any restrictions on B for running out of bounds on a play when it is not intentionally done. Are you asking about B running OOB on purpose? If so, I still don't know what advantage could be gained here except possibly to bait a pass to a seemingly wide open receiver. If so, maybe you have something.

[Time2Ref]

Hold on, let me get some popcorn.


This was discussed (ad nauseum) a couple of weeks ago. There was a big argument. 170 posts on one site and probably just as many on this site.

I'm sure that they will be changing the wording next year on the definition of an OOB player.

In the meantime, bring the subject up at your local association meeting and call it the way they tell you to call it.

I know how I will call it. I'm pretty sure that I understand the intention of the rules makers.

Tweeeeeeet! OOB. Stop the clock. Were going back to the line of scrimmage, adding one to the down marker, and signaling Ready to Play.

Coach, I hear you. We are moving on, let it go.

(Thought, but not said: Coach, shame on you for waisting the student athelete's time practicing this play)

[Illini_Ref]

My mistake. I meant that an A player went OOB, jumped, and deflected a pass.

I can see an advantage if he see an interception about to happen, goes OOB to get to the play, jumps and deflects the pass. I think I will go with ULC.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

A little twist.

B3 runs OOB, does not come back in, but as a pass nears the sideline, he jumps, bats the pass down, and lands OOB.

I can't be Illegal Participation because he never returned to the field of play during the down. He is still defined as a player because he was one of 22 who started the down. Could he be flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct for leaving the field of play without authorization to gain an advantage? That is all I can find.

CANADIAN RULING:

I've got Illegal Participation. Ten yards from PLS, DR.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

My mistake. I meant that an A player went OOB, jumped, and deflected a pass.

I can see an advantage if he see an interception about to happen, goes OOB to get to the play, jumps and deflects the pass. I think I will go with ULC.

CANADIAN RULING:

I've got Illegal Participation. Ten yards from PLS, DR.

[HLin NC]

Illini Ref- if you'll utilize the search function here, you can find several discussion threads about this scenario. As it stands for what appeared to be the majority of officials opinions here, BY THE BOOK, this a legal play as there is no definition of inbounds. A minority opinion was that it is a foul but I don't think "ULC" (unsportsmanlike?) was rendered as the method of penalizing it.

I understand both POV on this topic and would hope to a) never actually see it on the field and b) hope the Fed cleans this up-which will probably take 3 years of refining a definition as they work through the Law of Unintended Consequences.

[NorCalRef12]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

Illini Ref- if you'll utilize the search function here, you can find several discussion threads about this scenario. As it stands for what appeared to be the majority of officials opinions here, BY THE BOOK, this a legal play as there is no definition of inbounds. A minority opinion was that it is a foul but I don't think "ULC" (unsportsmanlike?) was rendered as the method of penalizing it.

I understand both POV on this topic and would hope to a) never actually see it on the field and b) hope the Fed cleans this up-which will probably take 3 years of refining a definition as they work through the Law of Unintended Consequences.

In California, this is to be interpreted as an Illegal Participation. The interpretation is that if one of the 22 players that starts the down is not OOB by definition, then he is inbounds. The state rules interpreter said that there isn't a no-man's land and this situation doesnt require a definition of inbounds.

[Mike L]

That would be news to us down in here San Diego unless of course this is a very recent decision by the state int.

[ajmc]

Speaking for a separate "minority" a much more rational interpretation is that the pass is simply incomplete, having touched a player who had previously established himself as being OOB (Assuming he had previously touched the ground OOB before touching the pass).

[NorCalRef12]

Originally Posted by Mike L

That would be news to us down in here San Diego unless of course this is a very recent decision by the state int.

The state interpreter is in the same association that I am in and we talked about this play specifically about 3 weeks ago.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by NorCalRef12

The state interpreter is in the same association that I am in and we talked about this play specifically about 3 weeks ago.

Perhaps he should contact our local interpreter, because as of 3 weeks ago we were told something completely different. And if this play was brought up during the state meeting, it failed to make the notes we rcvd.