Revised Brain Teaser

[MD Longhorn]

1st and 10 on the 50 yard line. A88 lines up as WR. After the snap, he runs 5 yards out of bounds and 5 yards behind the Line of Scrimmage to the 45 yard line. A12 rolls out in his direction. As A12 nears the sideline and the line of scrimmage, he tosses the ball backward and across the sideline toward A88 (the ball crosses the sideline at the 49). A88 leaps into the air, “catches” the ball with both hands, and before hitting the ground throws it (soccer throw-in style) slightly forward back across the field to A22, who catches the ball at the 47 and then throws a forward pass to A80 at the other team’s 40, who then runs it for a touchdown.

A) How many fouls are there on the play, if any?
B) What are Team B’s options, if any?
C) Where is the ball spotted for the next play, and what down is it?

State your ruleset and the rules you are using to justify your call.

[mbyron]

How can A88 "catch" the ball at his 49 and then throw the ball forward to A22 at the 47? Windy day?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by mbyron

How can A88 "catch" the ball at his 49 and then throw the ball forward to A22 at the 47? Windy day?

But that's not what I said. A88 is at the 45. A12 is near the LOS and sideline, and the ball crosses the sideline at the 49 ... and continues backward to A88 at the 45, who then "throws" it forward to the 47.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

1st and 10 on the 50 yard line. A88 lines up as WR. After the snap, he runs 5 yards out of bounds and 5 yards behind the Line of Scrimmage to the 45 yard line. A12 rolls out in his direction. As A12 nears the sideline and the line of scrimmage, he tosses the ball backward and across the sideline toward A88 (the ball crosses the sideline at the 49). A88 leaps into the air, “catches” the ball with both hands, and before hitting the ground throws it (soccer throw-in style) slightly forward back across the field to A22, who catches the ball at the 47 and then throws a forward pass to A80 at the other team’s 40, who then runs it for a touchdown.

A) How many fouls are there on the play, if any?
B) What are Team B’s options, if any?
C) Where is the ball spotted for the next play, and what down is it?

State your ruleset and the rules you are using to justify your call.

CANADIAN RULING:

A) (i) A88 went OB on his own. He cannot participate further in the play. If he does, it's 10 yards from PLS. [1-10-8] (ii) A22's pass is the second forward pass, which is illegal. 10 yards from PLS. [6-4-2] So there are two fouls.

B) Since the penalties are the same, any accepted penalty will give 1D/20 @ A-40.

C) There is precedence that says a player who is OB because of valid reasons to be OB, CAN participate, only if he is back inbounds. From that it can be inferred that the airborne A88 is still OB, even though airborne. Therefore, once he touched the ball, the ball is dead and the play is over, meaning that there is no foul for the second forward pass. Therefore, B decides only upon the illegal participation foul. Accepted: Team A 1D/20 @ A-40. Declined: Team A 2D/15 @ A-45.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.