How hard would be rule possession if order reversed?

[Robert Goodman]

How hard would it be to rule on possession of a caught ball if you had to determine, basketball-style, whether the player touched ground out of bounds before catching it, rather than and instead of after? I.e. if touching the ground in bounds after catching the ball were not necessary, but last touching the ground in bounds before catching it were?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

How hard would it be to rule on possession of a caught ball if you had to determine, basketball-style, whether the player touched ground out of bounds before catching it, rather than and instead of after? I.e. if touching the ground in bounds after catching the ball were not necessary, but last touching the ground in bounds before catching it were?

Interesting question. I think the possession part of the equation would be easier (as once you determined the foot was legal you could focus 100% on the possession and never have to pick up the foot again) and the "foot inbounds" portion would likely be a touch more difficult.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

How hard would it be to rule on possession of a caught ball if you had to determine, basketball-style, whether the player touched ground out of bounds before catching it, rather than and instead of after? I.e. if touching the ground in bounds after catching the ball were not necessary, but last touching the ground in bounds before catching it were?

I'm not sure I understand, Are you suggesting; a player could leap, from a position in-bounds, to out of-bounds, secure possession of a ball in flight and land as far out of-bounds as possible, and complete a catch? Wouldn't that change the entire perspective of sideline passing?

As it stands now, a player touching OOB is considered OOB and subsequent touching of a live ball by that OOB player, kills the ball, so if he completes a catch, he has caught a dead ball.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I'm not sure I understand, Are you suggesting; a player could leap, from a position in-bounds, to out of-bounds, secure possession of a ball in flight and land as far out of-bounds as possible, and complete a catch? Wouldn't that change the entire perspective of sideline passing?

No doubt it would be a substantive change. I'm just wondering how officials would feel about the difficulty of ruling on it that way vs. the way it is now.

As it stands now, a player touching OOB is considered OOB and subsequent touching of a live ball by that OOB player, kills the ball, so if he completes a catch, he has caught a dead ball.

Not in Fed, if "subsequent" includes jumping off the ground -- unless they changed that and I didn't notice. There was a lot of discussion about that one here.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Rich

Interesting question. I think the possession part of the equation would be easier (as once you determined the foot was legal you could focus 100% on the possession and never have to pick up the foot again) and the "foot inbounds" portion would likely be a touch more difficult.

Difficulty because of having to watch every step players take near the sideline if the ball is coming into their vicinity? But only a touch more difficult, even though you might have to be watching more than one player's feet because you don't know which one might catch the ball?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

No doubt it would be a substantive change.
Not in Fed, if "subsequent" includes jumping off the ground -- unless they changed that and I didn't notice. There was a lot of discussion about that one here.

Wasn't that, rather obvious, notion thoroughly discredited during that extensive discussion. That horse was killed and converted into glue and shouldn't be expected to race ever again.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by ajmc

As it stands now, a player touching OOB is considered OOB and subsequent touching of a live ball by that OOB player, kills the ball, so if he completes a catch, he has caught a dead ball.

That's not true. If a player is not touching OOB, then he is not considered to be OOB.

Example: WR A28 is forced OOB by DB B47. He leaps from OOB, catches the ball and lands inbounds. Legal play.

2-29-1
A player or other person is out of bounds when any part of the person is touching anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside the sideline or end line.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Wasn't that, rather obvious, notion thoroughly discredited during that extensive discussion. That horse was killed and converted into glue and shouldn't be expected to race ever again.

Unfortunately the horse is still standing on one leg since the rule change a couple years ago only addressed the situation when a player INTENTIONALLY goes out of bounds. If he accidentally steps out, taps or "catches" the ball and throws is backward to a teammate, it's still a legal play. I know you say incomplete based on your own common sense, but that is not supported by rule. The rule change submitted intended to address this situation as well, but I understand that portion was removed because it created another issue. I'm surprised it hasn't resurfaced again. I'm guessing because it's such a rare instance that it isn't a big issue in actual game situations.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

That's not true. If a player is not touching OOB, then he is not considered to be OOB.

Example: WR A28 is forced OOB by DB B47. He leaps from OOB, catches the ball and lands inbounds. Legal play.

2-29-1
A player or other person is out of bounds when any part of the person is touching anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside the sideline or end line.

There are several instances within NFHS rules that exempt a player from being penalized for some action that he was FORCED into by an opponent, by authorizing the ignoring of the FORCED contact, which is the principle that might (depending on how immediate the continuation suggested occurred) render your above example as a legal play.

However it was, and still is illogical and silly to try and interpret 2-20-1 to relate to a player who has voluntarily established himself as being OOB (by satisfying the verbiage of 2-29-1 and establishing himself as being OOB by "touching" the ground OOB) and subsequently, while remaining beyond the confines of the playing surface, leaping into the air.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by ajmc

However it was, and still is illogical and silly to try and interpret 2-20-1 to relate to a player who has voluntarily established himself as being OOB (by satisfying the verbiage of 2-29-1 and establishing himself as being OOB by "touching" the ground OOB) and subsequently, while remaining beyond the confines of the playing surface, leaping into the air.

It's black and white.

There is no case play or interpretation that states any different. When you find something that this player is OOB, post it.

[Robert Goodman]

The reason I asked the question was to see how hard this rule would make it on the officials in my pro league. Some of the things I'd have would eliminate hard calls, others would introduce them, and sometimes, as in this case, I don't know whether officials would find it easier or harder. What this rule would do would cause the field to play as if it were a little bit larger than marked. If the ball subsequently became dead out of bounds (as by having a player gain possession & then touch first OOB), the dead ball spot would be where it crossed the sideline rather than position at the time it became dead.

However, it would apply no matter whether a player was entering or exiting the playing area. If entering, they would have to "establish" as in basketball, though not necessarily identically to however they rule that.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

It's black and white.

There is no case play or interpretation that states any different. When you find something that this player is OOB, post it.

Seems like we've been down this rabbit hole before. If you find it necessary to "place your hand in the wound left by the spear", or demand something in writing, that's on you. Knock yourself out with that call.

[Welpe]

Is touching is clear enough and that's about all I have to say about that.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Seems like we've been down this rabbit hole before. If you find it necessary to "place your hand in the wound left by the spear", or demand something in writing, that's on you. Knock yourself out with that call.

I admire your determination to remain in the 1% that interpret it this way. Fortunately this rarely if ever actually happens so it won't be a factor in a game anyway.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Is touching is clear enough and that's about all I have to say about that.

Too bad that sentence wasn't clear enough.