Kickoff question

[mbyron]

6.1.8 SITUATION C: R1 is running near a sideline as he attempts to catch a free
kick in flight. R1 has: (a) both feet inbounds; or (b) one foot on the sideline, when
he reaches through the plane of the sideline. The ball bounces off his hands and
lands out of bounds. RULING: In (a), the ball is not yet out of bounds until it hit
the ground there. Since R1 touched it, he caused it to go out of bounds and R will
have the ball at the inbounds spot. In (b), since R1 is out of bounds when the ball
is touched, the kicker has caused the ball to be out of bounds.

[MD Longhorn]

Dolphins player did this on purpose about 2 years ago.

[SC Ump]

Originally Posted by mbyron

6.1.8 SITUATION C: R1 is running near a sideline as he attempts to catch a free
kick in flight. R1 has...

I'm curious about a (c) situation that is not mentioned here.

(c) one foot on the sideline, when he into the field of play, touching the grounded ball that is completly inbounds and almost at rest.

Is it a kick out of bounds or is R the "offender"?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by SC Ump

I'm curious about a (c) situation that is not mentioned here.

(c) one foot on the sideline, when he into the field of play, touching the grounded ball that is completly inbounds and almost at rest.

Is it a kick out of bounds or is R the "offender"?

What makes the ball out of bounds?

[BIG UMP]

It is still a kick OOB. The ball has to touch an R player inbounds........ and this R player is not inbounds.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BIG UMP

It is still a kick OOB. The ball has to touch an R player inbounds........ and this R player is not inbounds.

The way you phrased that is entirely incorrect, and likely the reason he missed it.

The ball has to touch an inbounds R player. The difference between that and "an R player inbounds" makes ALL the difference.

[SC Ump]

Originally Posted by BIG UMP

It is still a kick OOB. The ball has to touch an R player inbounds........ and this R player is not inbounds.

This is the same as I thought, but I wasn't sure.

It just seems unfair to me that an OOB R player could reach back into the field, while he was still OOB, and touch/muff the ball and (even if the ball would not have gone OOB on it's own) the action of the R player causes K to be penalized.

Two lessons:
1. K should not kick a free kick even near the side line.
2. What I preceive as "fair" and what is the proper ruling are not necessarily the same.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by SC Ump

This is the same as I thought, but I wasn't sure.

It just seems unfair to me that an OOB R player could reach back into the field, while he was still OOB, and touch/muff the ball and (even if the ball would not have gone OOB on it's own) the action of the R player causes K to be penalized.

Two lessons:
1. K should not kick a free kick even near the side line.
2. What I preceive as "fair" and what is the proper ruling are not necessarily the same.

It's not so much about fairness, it's about having a single, universal definition of a player being out of bounds (including for pass receptions and running plays). If he's OOB when he touches a kick, it's a kick OOB.

[BktBallRef]

For argument's sake, why does this phrase appear in the case play?

"...when he reaches through the plane of the sideline."

He has one foot inbounds and one foot OOB, which means the player is OOB. Why does it matter whether he touches the ball on the inbounds side of the sideline plane or reaches through the plane of the sideline and touches the ball?