Kickoff question

[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?

[SC Ump]

Originally Posted by 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?

I just returned from one of our local associations pre-season meeting where this exact question was asked. Some believed that this was an old reference to the "plane" of the side line that is no longer relavent. Others, believe that if R is OOB but reaches into the field of play, they have caused the ball to go OOB and thus they get the ball at that spot, i.e. no foul.

Even though I'm not knowledgeable enough to argue with these guys, I did play devil's advocate, saying, "But doesn't touching always proceed possession, and isn't it still a kick until possessed, and those the status was still "a kick" and it was touch by a player OOB, thus a Free Kick OOB?"

We did not come away with a consensus.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by 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?

You're right: it doesn't matter to the ruling. But I think they added that phrase for specificity in the case.

It might have made more sense to make the case go the other direction: even if the ball is still over the field of play, if the player who touches the kick is OOB, then it's a kick OOB and a foul.