Free Kick Play

[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.

[Fedex]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

This is part of what I am looking at. K was clearly out of bounds in the restricted area. When R2 made the block, he took a step into the restricted area and contacted K1. Does this justify a personal foul? Trying to find a good reference to support it.

As far as K1 goes, he ran right through the restricted area until he got to the R30 and then re-entered the playing field. He did not run through the bench area at all. To be honest, I don't believe K1 or R2 knew where the heck they were on the field.

[ump33]

Originally Posted by Fedex

This is part of what I am looking at. K was clearly out of bounds in the restricted area. When R2 made the block, he took a step into the restricted area and contacted K1. Does this justify a personal foul? Trying to find a good reference to support it.

No, it is not a PF. It is Illegal Participation
9-6-2 ... No player shall intentionally go out of bounds during the down and:
a. Return to the field;
b. Intentionally touch the ball;
c. Influence the play; or
d. Otherwise participate.

As far as K1 goes, he ran right through the restricted area until he got to the R30 and then re-entered the playing field. He did not run through the bench area at all. To be honest, I don't believe K1 or R2 knew where the heck they were on the field.

It does not matter if K1 made the tackle, chased the runner or was blocked by anyone. When K1 returned inbounds, he was guilty of Illegal Participation at the R30 because he did not "return at the first opportunity" (he ran 15 yards out of bounds).
9-6-1 . . . Prior to a change of possession, or when there is no change of possession, no player of A or K shall go out of bounds and return to the field during the down unless blocked out of bounds by an opponent. If a player is blocked out of bounds by an opponent and returns to the field during the down, he shall return at the first opportunity.

Double Foul, offset and replay the down.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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

What? At this point, K is doing what he's allowed to do - trying to return to the field immediately after being blocked out of bounds. How in the world can K be flagged at this point in the play?

I see your point later in the play - after running 15 yards out of bounds, if he comes in and occupies a blocker, he could be flagged for IP (play going the other way is not enough to rule it out -- but if the play ended very shortly after K re-entered, I'd not flag it.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

What? At this point, K is doing what he's allowed to do - trying to return to the field immediately after being blocked out of bounds. How in the world can K be flagged at this point in the play?

I see your point later in the play - after running 15 yards out of bounds, if he comes in and occupies a blocker, he could be flagged for IP (play going the other way is not enough to rule it out -- but if the play ended very shortly after K re-entered, I'd not flag it.

This is what I was thinking of. But given this play, I'm not sure I agree with the rest of this sentence. By running 15 yards OOB and taking a blocker with him, he's definitely participating, even if the play ends shortly after he re-enters.

I just can't see flagging R here but giving K a pass, since K's illegal actions occasioned R's.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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

Sorry ... neglected to answer this part. If R left the field and blocked, then he's guilty of IP as well. 9-6, not 9-4.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Sorry ... neglected to answer this part. If R left the field and blocked, then he's guilty of IP as well. 9-6, not 9-4.

Yep, I see that now. I was looking at the provision of the IP rule that prohibits A/K from leaving the field (9-6-1 rather than 9-6-2), and addressing the idea that R hitting K OOB might be a PF (hence the reference to 9-4).

[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.