Revised Brain Teaser

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Ok, I can give you a number of things that haven't happened, and then what I think should be called. I'll go with NFHS rules. I will also presume that after his leap, A88 once again lands OOB - otherwise, this is an easy call.

1) The ball has not gone out of bounds. 2-29-1 does not include airborne A88 in its definition of OOB, and thus 2-29-3 (which covers the loose ball) does not apply.

2) A88 has neither caught (2-4-1) nor passed (2-31-1) the ball. Passing requires player possession (2-34-1), which requires a catch here, which requires coming back to the ground inbounds with the ball.

3) Nor has A88 batted (2-2) the ball, which requires slapping or striking.

I believe A88 has committed illegal participation for violating 9-6-2: "No player shall intentionally go out of bounds and return." When did he return? When he leaped into the air! As previously mentioned, while airborne he is by definition no longer out of bounds. I count that as returning. 15 yards from previous spot, replay the down.

For those who disagree, I recommend enforcing the same penalty with a different justification: 9-9-5 "Neither team shall commit any act which, in the opinion of the referee, tends to make a travesty of the game." This allows R to enforce any penalty he feels equitable.

[Welpe]

I was going to say that this could not be a pass in NCAA but I don't see anything in NCAA that restricts a pass to a player in possession like the Fed definition. Logically I think that is the intent of the NCAA rule but I can't make the rules fit.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by The Roamin' Umpire

I believe A88 has committed illegal participation for violating 9-6-2: "No player shall intentionally go out of bounds and return." When did he return? When he leaped into the air! As previously mentioned, while airborne he is by definition no longer out of bounds. I count that as returning. 15 yards from previous spot, replay the down.

While I like where you tried to go here, I don't believe this player has returned in bounds. Why? Because he's neither in nor out of bounds. A player who legally catches a normal pass over in-bounds territory is not yet in bounds until he lands on the ground with 1 or 2 (depending on ruleset) feet in bounds. Neither is the player in our sitch here.

For those who disagree, I recommend enforcing the same penalty with a different justification: 9-9-5 "Neither team shall commit any act which, in the opinion of the referee, tends to make a travesty of the game." This allows R to enforce any penalty he feels equitable.

LOL. I don't know if any official ever invoking this rule, at any level. However, if any situation calls for it, I can see invoking it here. By any other rule, there was nothing illegal about this play in any ruleset.

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

While I like where you tried to go here, I don't believe this player has returned in bounds. Why? Because he's neither in nor out of bounds. A player who legally catches a normal pass over in-bounds territory is not yet in bounds until he lands on the ground with 1 or 2 (depending on ruleset) feet in bounds. Neither is the player in our sitch here.

Our problem, of course, is while the rulebook defines "out of bounds" quite clearly, it never defines "inbounds." My take is that there is no third option - if you're not out of bounds, you MUST be inbounds. But I can see how someone else might view it differently.

I will point out, though, that 9-6-2 does not contain the word "inbounds" - it just says "go out of bounds and return." When the leaping player goes from OOB to not-OOB, I think that counts as returning whether or not you think he's inbounds while airborne.

LOL. I don't know if any official ever invoking this rule, at any level. However, if any situation calls for it, I can see invoking it here. By any other rule, there was nothing illegal about this play in any ruleset.

Oh, I've never heard of it, either. But it's there, and as you said - if this isn't the reason, I'm not sure what is.