Yet another play for you:

[ump33]

Since touching the pylon was not intentional, this Illegal Participation is covered in 9-6-1 (accidental) and not 9-6-2b (intentional). The difference being, in 9-6-1 it is not IP until the A player returns inbounds. In 9-6-2b it is IP when the A player touches the ball.

Foul during run and the run ended in the EZ, enforce 15 yds from the GL 1st & 10 at the 15.

HLin NC ... sorry for the "over post" I am a slow search & peck typest. Like you, I seem to recall a case play that involved the upright, but I cannot locate it either.

[ChickenOfNC]

Originally Posted by ump33

Since touching the pylon was not intentional, this Illegal Participation is covered in 9-6-1 (accidental) and not 9-6-2b (intentional). The difference being, in 9-6-1 it is not IP until the A player returns inbounds. In 9-6-2b it is IP when the A player touches the ball.

Foul during run and the run ended in the EZ, enforce 15 yds from the GL 1st & 10 at the 15.

HLin NC ... sorry for the "over post" I am a slow search & peck typest. Like you, I seem to recall a case play that involved the upright, but I cannot locate it either.

Ok, devils advocate: He returns inbounds when his foot touches inbounds (which is when the foul occurs).

It's not a catch until he established possession and then returned to the ground.

So they both seem to happen simultaneously. How can we determine if the foul occurred during the pass (loose ball play), or after he caught it (running play)?

[MD Longhorn]

This ruling, if correct, is insane.

[APG]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

this ruling, if correct, is insane.

+1

[HLin NC]

This ruling, if correct, is insane.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

[ump33]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

The Law of Unintended Consequences

No argument here

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

This ruling, if correct, is insane.

Put me on record for thinking the NCAA ruling makes a TON more sense.

But at least thankfully we can move on from the whole "is touching" fiasco of yore.