Revised Brain Teaser

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

CANADIAN RULING: (ii) A22's pass is the second forward pass, which is illegal.

I don't want to turn this into a Canadian football convo, but I'm curious. In your rules, does A88 actually possess the ball? He never came down with the ball. If this happened in bounds, does he have possession already before getting rid of the ball? If not - then is his throwing of the ball forward actually a pass? The other question that I'm curious about is - in your rules, is A88 actually still out of bounds when he's airborne above out of bounds - and what does it take for him to be back "inbounds"? Contact in bounds? 2 feet in contact in bounds? Just being "over" inbound territory?

[Mike L]

It's pretty much the same for both codes as your original "Brain Teaser" except now you've thrown an illegal bat into the picture. It's a bat because an airborne player cannot complete a catch, therefore if he intentionally propels the ball in some direction, he has batted it. And an offensive player may not bat a backward pass forward 1) at all in NFHS or, 2) in an attempt to gain yardage in NCAA.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Mike L

It's pretty much the same for both codes as your original "Brain Teaser" except now you've thrown an illegal bat into the picture. It's a bat because an airborne player cannot complete a catch, therefore if he intentionally propels the ball in some direction, he has batted it. And an offensive player may not bat a backward pass forward 1) at all in NFHS or, 2) in an attempt to gain yardage in NCAA.

Another difference is that 88 is not fielding a forward pass, which was part of what was illegal in the first sitch.

You sure this fits the definition of BAT in the two rule codes you mention? And what about NFL to those that work that code.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Another difference is that 88 is not fielding a forward pass, which was part of what was illegal in the first sitch.

You sure this fits the definition of BAT in the two rule codes you mention? And what about NFL to those that work that code.

True, eligibility would not be lost per NCAA since it's backward, so that particular foul could not be called, but the others could as before along with the illegal bat.

As for the definition of bat, it's clear per NCAA "striking it or changing direction with hands or arms". NFHS, not so clear, but I don't know what else you could call it. I believe we discussed this type play, only it was a legal forward pass to a legal airborne receiver who tossed it forward to another rec'r, in one of our meetings a while ago and our rule interp guy came up with batting but because it was a legal forward to legal rec'r who never completed a catch, there was no foul.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I don't want to turn this into a Canadian football convo, but I'm curious. In your rules, does A88 actually possess the ball? He never came down with the ball. If this happened in bounds, does he have possession already before getting rid of the ball? If not - then is his throwing of the ball forward actually a pass?

Last I recall, Canadian rules didn't require a player to possess the ball to make what's considered to be an offside pass, but merely to direct the ball forward other than by the foot or lower leg. And the forward pass provisions are in terms of exception (among others) to the general prohibition on, and definition of, offside passes. And the forward pass provisions didn't require the ball to be thrown, therefore possession wasn't required there either.

[MD Longhorn]

Well, there are, I guess, 2 ways to look at In vs Out of bounds - neither of which changes the way you would rule on this. And you are right - "Inbounds" is not really a rulebook term.

1 way is saying that there are only 2 statuses - Out of Bounds and NOT Out of bounds. A player currently contacting something out of bounds is out of bounds... everyone else is simply "Not out of bounds", including the player in the OP.

The other way is saying that a player can be In bounds, Out of bounds, or neither. I don't think that thinking of it this way changes the way you'd rule on any play, including the OP. Again - "in bounds" really means nothing. "In bounds" and "Neither in nor out" are treated, in all cases I can think of, as the same thing. All that really matters is whether a player is CURRENTLY out of bounds. The player in the OP is not.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I don't want to turn this into a Canadian football convo, but I'm curious. In your rules, does A88 actually possess the ball? He never came down with the ball. If this happened in bounds, does he have possession already before getting rid of the ball? If not - then is his throwing of the ball forward actually a pass? The other question that I'm curious about is - in your rules, is A88 actually still out of bounds when he's airborne above out of bounds - and what does it take for him to be back "inbounds"? Contact in bounds? 2 feet in contact in bounds? Just being "over" inbound territory?

The player being OB rule doesn't address the OB player jumping to then be airborne. My interp is that he's definitely OB, because the rule that says when he can participate further states that the player must become again inbounds. This infers that the airborne A88 is still OB.

To be back inbounds, it's like the Fed basketball rule: at least one foot in bounds and nothing still OB.

Since the play is over, A88 possessing the ball is moot. If inbounds, the airborne A88 has control of the ball, but the pass is not complete until he survives contact with the ground and opponent.

[bsaucer]

It's either a ball out of bounds, or an illegal participation by an out of bounds player. He's not inbounds until he lands in bounds.

A ball thrown out of bounds may touch or be touched by players in the OOB area without penalty. However, if any of those OOB players deliberately touch the ball before it crosses the side line, it should be flagged as illegal participation.

An OOB player can also be guilty of illegal participation if he deliberately touches players on the field during a play.