Restablishing in-bounds position

[batreferee]

A ball carrier is running down the sideline, who is then stripped of the ball. The ball carrier who continues running steps out of bounds for several strides and then restablishes in bounds position and recovers the ball. Does "A" retain possession of the ball at the spot of recovery or does "B" gain possession of the ball since the ball carrier was the first one to touch the ball after regaining in bounds position?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by batreferee

A ball carrier is running down the sideline, who is then stripped of the ball. The ball carrier who continues running steps out of bounds for several strides and then restablishes in bounds position and recovers the ball.

Team A's ball. There is no "reestablishment" requirement other than if a player is touching out of bounds and touches the ball, the ball is out of bounds.

[maven]

Which rule set? In NFHS this would be A's ball but IP. 9-6-2b

[WestCoaster]

Originally Posted by maven

Which rule set? In NFHS this would be A's ball but IP. 9-6-2b

9-6-2 would not apply if he was knocked out of bounds when he was stripped and returned at his first opportunity.

I can't tell from your description of the play whether he was knocked out of bounds or not.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Team A's ball. There is no "reestablishment" requirement other than if a player is touching out of bounds and touches the ball, the ball is out of bounds.

Exactly. If he's not touching OOB, he's inbounds.

[maven]

Originally Posted by WestCoaster

9-6-2 would not apply if he was knocked out of bounds when he was stripped and returned at his first opportunity.

I can't tell from your description of the play whether he was knocked out of bounds or not.

9-6-2 also wouldn't apply if there was an IW. Do you want to describe what would happen then? Can you tell from the OP whether there was an IW?

I answer questions based on the info given. The OP doesn't mention the runner being blocked out.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by maven

9-6-2 also wouldn't apply if there was an IW. Do you want to describe what would happen then? Can you tell from the OP whether there was an IW?

I answer questions based on the info given. The OP doesn't mention the runner being blocked out.

You're kidding, right?

Whether the runner was contacted and caused him to go OOB is a definite possibility in such a play. It's certainly not unreasonable to pose the possibility or the question.

OTOH there's nothing at all to suggest an IW occurred.

Sheesh.

[batreferee]

The force of the strip knocked the runner out of bounds and there was no IW.

[MD Longhorn]

Here's what's insane about this play... we talked about this a few months back.

In both plays, the runner is not forced out of bounds, and goes out on his own ... or was forced out but stays out of bounds longer than the official deems necessary and did not return "immediately". In both plays, the ball rolls forward 20 yards and is recovered by the runner.

A) The runner steps in bounds just prior to recovering the ball.
B) The runner never steps in bounds and is still contacting out of bounds when he recovers the ball.

In A) IP and a 15 yard penalty.
In B) No IP.

This result is very odd to me.

[Welpe]

That just confirms I like the NCAA rules about this situation much more. At least you don't have to deal with the Fed rule either, Mike.

[maven]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Here's what's insane about this play... we talked about this a few months back.

In both plays, the runner is not forced out of bounds, and goes out on his own ... or was forced out but stays out of bounds longer than the official deems necessary and did not return "immediately". In both plays, the ball rolls forward 20 yards and is recovered by the runner.

A) The runner steps in bounds just prior to recovering the ball.
B) The runner never steps in bounds and is still contacting out of bounds when he recovers the ball.

In A) IP and a 15 yard penalty.
In B) No IP.

This result is very odd to me.

If the runner intentionally goes out of bounds and, as in your play (B), intentionally contacts the ball while he's OOB, that is IP under 9-6-2b.

I believe this rule changed in 2011.

[WestCoaster]

Originally Posted by batreferee

The force of the strip knocked the runner out of bounds and there was no IW.

There you go. So if the runner returns at first opportunity and recovers it, no foul.
Maven, why so bellicose? I was just trying to to clarify what really happened.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by maven

If the runner intentionally goes out of bounds and, as in your play (B), intentionally contacts the ball while he's OOB, that is IP under 9-6-2b.

I believe this rule changed in 2011.

So what about:

Kickoff goes outside the hash and towards the sideline. R1 heads over, steps out of bounds, and touches the ball.

[maven]

Originally Posted by Adam

So what about:

Kickoff goes outside the hash and towards the sideline. R1 heads over, steps out of bounds, and touches the ball.

That's the play that motivated the rule change. Under the previous rule, R was getting a cheap kick OOB flag for that play.