Free Kick Play

[ump33]

Originally Posted by Fedex

NFHS Rules.

During a kickoff, K1 is forced out of bounds by R1 at the 50.

No problem ... K1 was blocked/forced out

While still out of bounds and attempting to re-enter the field of play, K1 is contacted by R2 at the R45.

Still no problem on K, he is attempting to re-enter at his first opportunity. Play does not state that R went out of bounds to block K, so no foul on R

After the contact, K1 stays out of bounds and re-enters the playing field at the R30.

Oops, from the R45 to the R30 and the play states "K1 stays OB". That does not sound like first opportunity ... Illegal Participation on K1 when he returns inbounds at the R30.

Enforcement depends of the status of the ball when K1 returned inbounds (9-6-1).

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by ump33

Enforcement depends of the status of the ball when K1 returned inbounds (9-6-1).

I believe you're saying that enforcement will depend on whether the foul occurs before or after R gains possession (whether the kick has ended). The basic spot will be the previous spot for the former (loose ball play), or the end of the run for the latter (running play).

But I would add that whether you have a foul also depends on a different status of the ball when K1 returned to the field. If the ball was dead, he couldn't have participated.

It's also worth remembering that, although the spot of the foul in this case is where K1 re-entered the field, the foul is for participating, not merely re-entering.

[Fedex]

Just some clarification...

R2 did contact K1 out of bounds, before he could return.

When K1 did return to the field of play, R3 had possession of the ball and the play was still live.

The reason I am asking is that I had this play happen to me and I am wondering if I got it right.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Fedex

Just some clarification...

R2 did contact K1 out of bounds, before he could return.

When K1 did return to the field of play, R3 had possession of the ball and the play was still live.

The reason I am asking is that I had this play happen to me and I am wondering if I got it right.

What did K1 do after returning to the field? Where was R2 when the contact occurred?

[Fedex]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

What did K1 do after returning to the field? Where was R2 when the contact occurred?

K1 came back into the field of play, but really didn't have an impact on the play.

R2 was a step out of bounds and K1 was fully out of bounds when the contact occurred.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Fedex

K1 came back into the field of play, but really didn't have an impact on the play.

R2 was a step out of bounds and K1 was fully out of bounds when the contact occurred.

I've got 15 on R, nothing on K.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I've got 15 on R, nothing on K.

Under NFHS? For what? No rule -- or at least no provision of 9-4 -- prohibits R from blocking K in this case.

Indeed, if you're going to flag R here, you MUST flag K, since K is clearly participating by occupying a blocker!

And, as a game management issue: if K1 has run 15 yds downfield and OOB in order to get in on this play, I'm not flagging R for a hit that's 6 inches OOB and getting K off the hook for IP.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Fedex

K1 came back into the field of play, but really didn't have an impact on the play.

Careful here. If you mean he didn't tackle the runner, then there's more to "have an impact" than you're thinking.

If the K player occupies a blocker, then his illegal act has affected the play and gained K an advantage. That's illegal participation, and it needs to be flagged.

I get that many people don't like the NFHS rule here, but that's a separate issue.

[Fedex]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Careful here. If you mean he didn't tackle the runner, then there's more to "have an impact" than you're thinking.

If the K player occupies a blocker, then his illegal act has affected the play and gained K an advantage. That's illegal participation, and it needs to be flagged.

I get that many people don't like the NFHS rule here, but that's a separate issue.

Fair enough...to further clarify, R3 was tackled on the other side of the field away from K1. K1 did participate by re-entering the field.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Fedex

During a kickoff, K1 is forced out of bounds by R1 at the 50. While still out of bounds and attempting to re-enter the field of play, K1 is contacted by R2 at the R45. After the contact, K1 stays out of bounds and re-enters the playing field at the R30. What do you have?

Originally Posted by Fedex

K1 came back into the field of play, but really didn't have an impact on the play.

R2 was a step out of bounds and K1 was fully out of bounds when the contact occurred.

CANADIAN RULING:

No initial foul on K1 because he was blocked to out of bounds.

It sounds as though R2 was out of bounds illegally who then participated. Flag for Illegal Participation.

If K1 used the out of bounds area to his advantage, then I have Illegal Participation on him as well.

[hawktalk]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I believe you're saying that enforcement will depend on whether the foul occurs before or after R gains possession (whether the kick has ended). The basic spot will be the previous spot for the former (loose ball play), or the end of the run for the latter (running play).

But I would add that whether you have a foul also depends on a different status of the ball when K1 returned to the field. If the ball was dead, he couldn't have participated.

It's also worth remembering that, although the spot of the foul in this case is where K1 re-entered the field, the foul is for participating, not merely re-entering.

I hear this a lot when talking about IP, but its when he steps back on field the foul has occured, not only if he " does something"

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by hawktalk

I hear this a lot when talking about IP, but its when he steps back on field the foul has occured, not only if he " does something"

Not if he stepped out intentionally (which would be rare). Then he's guilty of IP merely for participating.

[hawktalk]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Not if he stepped out intentionally (which would be rare). Then he's guilty of IP merely for participating.

Not sure what you are saying. If he intentionally steps out, you have a hat down, not a flag. If he doesnt re-enter field during the down, there is no foul

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by hawktalk

I hear this a lot when talking about IP, but its when he steps back on field the foul has occured, not only if he " does something"

No, mere reentry is not IP. PARTICIPATING (at all) is required for illegal participation.

Imagine the play nearing it's end on the other sideline, our OOB WR walks back onto the field, or even jogs back on while heading to his own sideline --- if he is not involved in the play and no one from the other team reacts to him, he has not participated.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

No, mere reentry is not IP. PARTICIPATING (at all) is required for illegal participation.

Imagine the play nearing it's end on the other sideline, our OOB WR walks back onto the field, or even jogs back on while heading to his own sideline --- if he is not involved in the play and no one from the other team reacts to him, he has not participated.

I would like to see NFHS clarify 9-6-1 and 9-6-2. The letter of the rule, especially 9-6-2, states that it's a foul to return to the field. "No player shall intentionally go out of bounds during the down and: (a) Return to the field."

However, the concept and philosophy of illegal participation is that merely stepping on the field, with nobody else around, is not participation and does not warrant a flag. Provided that one understands 'participation' broadly enough — not just catching a pass, but also occupying a blocker, for instance — it's reasonable to require the player who went OOB to participate before penalizing his team 15 yards for illegal PARTICIPATION.

Between that and the slippage about what constitutes "intentionally" going OOB, this rule needs some editorial revision. I'd be happy to consult, if you're reading this post, NFHS rules committee members.