Kickoff question
 

Ball is kicked near the sideline on a kickoff. The returner before catching the ball has one foot out of bounds and the other foot in-bounds, as soon as he catches and possesses the kicked ball the official blows the play dead. My question is "is ball spotted where caught or is this a out of bounds violation"?
Any help would be appreciated.

If the receiver, or any player is OOB, with one or both feet, and subsequently touches a kick it is a kick OOB.

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.

Dolphins player did this on purpose about 2 years ago.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I believe this is the explanation as once upon a time, the sideline plane was relevant.

I'm no longer current on NFHS rules. Does the rule change this year concerning illegal participation affect the ruling?

Now your just trying to open a whole new can of worms.

The consensus was the if R intentionally went OOB or realized he was OOB and then intentionally reached back in to touch the ball, then yes, that would definitely fall under the new rule. No one felt that it would apply if R was perhaps accidentally touching the side line with one foot as he fielded the ball inside "the plane".

NFHS | 2011 NFHS Football Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 3 (9.6.2): K1 free-kicks the ball toward the sideline. R1 runs to a sideline and intentionally steps out of bounds. While R1 is still out of bounds, he intentionally touches the ball as it nears the sideline. The ball is declared dead by the covering official. RULING: Illegal participation by R1. This is not a kick out of bounds as the ball was touched by an R player and the ball became dead when it was touched. (4-3-1; 6-1-8)

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

Not a foul is ball has yet to touch the ground. But the play is blown dead at that spot. If after the ball bounces, Illegal Participation.

If the ball is inbounds when touched by an R player who is touching oob, the R player is the one who caused the ball to be come dead. R's ball at the spot.
If R while touching oob, reaches oob and touches a kick that has broken the sideline plane, the kicker is the one who caused the ball to become dead. Flag it there and give R their options.

That's the way we've always enforced, it too. If the ball isn't OOB or hasn't broken the sideline plane, then R caused the ball to go OOB.

Of at least, that's how we've always discussed it. Never seen it happen. :)

The situation you describe is one of the reasons for the revision of NF: 9-6-2.

Previously, NF: 2-29-3, "A loose ball is OOB when it touches anything, including a player or game official, that is OOB." Note there is no limitation or restriction as to how or why either the player or official is OOB, and in this situation the ball is clearly a "loose ball" as defined by NF: 2-1-3.

It is NOT THE PLAYER who has caused the ball to become dead, rather that is caused by the loose ball touching a player who is (already) OOB, as defined by NF: 2-29-1. Considering the advantage, subsequently decided to be improper, deliberately creating this ill gotten gain, NF: 9-6-2 was adjusted to prohibit the practice and correct this imbalance.

In summary, if R is intentionally out of bounds it is illegal participation. If R is accidentally out of bounds, it is still a free kick out of bounds against K.

So we're decided, then? It's a single penalty for illegal participation, and NOT double fouls for a free kick out of bounds AND illegal participation, followed by re-kicking?

I love finding cans of worms to open.