A couple of plays I am confused about?

[GBRFAN]

3 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I keep seeing the term "loophole" being used in this rule interpretation.  I don't see where there is a "loophole".

 

1.  Since it's a kickoff, the ball is live for any team recover and gain possession (much like a fumble, in my view).

2.  Before the ball has established possession by a team, the ball is touched first by a player who has established himself as OOB, which makes the ball OOB, and the ball dead.

3.  If a fumble is touched by a player OOB before any team gains possession, the ball is declared OOB and a dead ball (much like this scenario in the kickoff).

4.  In the instance of a fumble which is declared OOB, the ball goes to the team which last had possession.

5.  Since a kickoff never has an established possession, the ball is declared to be kicked OOB by the kicking team, thus given the penalty for kicking it OOB.

 

It seems pretty logical to me.

 

it's a loophole because it is the only play where it becomes a penalty that moves the ball to the 35.  it is all logical except the kicking team did nothing wrong so why penalize them - loophole is probably not the best word to be used but the point is the same

[84HuskerLaw]

8 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

 

except if you try to catch a pass while out of bounds, the ball is not touching the field...

 

thanks for your explanation and accompanying video, but I still think the rule makes no sense...it negates a perfectly executed kick

In addition, in the case of the fumbled ball that is touched by a player that is out of bounds, the ball remains 'live' until the ball goes out of bounds or is possessed by the player out of bounds.   In such case, the ball is then spotted at that point on the field, and not returned to the previous spot or the 35 or something.   Once a player leaves the playing field he is not able to participate in the play and doing so would be a penalty on him.   Also, if same player steps out of bounds and then reaches out and trips a player on the field, that also would be a penalty I believe.   Whether the rules is technically correctly applied, it certainly makes no sense.   If the same player had caught the ball in the air and then landed out of bounds, the spot would be at that point as he took it out of bounds.   I believe that would be the ruling.

[ColoradoHusk]

1 minute ago, GBRFAN said:

 

it's a loophole because it is the only play where it becomes a penalty that moves the ball to the 35.  it is all logical except the kicking team did nothing wrong so why penalize them

The penalty you are questioning is the same penalty if the kicking team kicked the ball out of bounds without anyone touching it.  It's not a loop hole, at all.  The player touching the ball while OOB makes the kick OOB, therefore it gets the same penalty of kicking the ball OOB without anyone touching it.  I don't get why it should be treated differently.

[GBRFAN]

Just now, ColoradoHusk said:

The penalty you are questioning is the same penalty if the kicking team kicked the ball out of bounds without anyone touching it.  It's not a loop hole, at all.  The player touching the ball while OOB makes the kick OOB, therefore it gets the same penalty of kicking the ball OOB without anyone touching it.  I don't get why it should be treated differently.

maybe because the kicker never kicked it OOB

[ColoradoHusk]

Just now, GBRFAN said:

maybe because the kicker never kicked it OOB

Again, the player touching it from OOB makes the ball OOB, which then is treated as the ball kicking it OOB.  If a fumble doesn't touch the sideline, but is touched by a player who is OOB, the fumble is declared OOB.  It's the exact same situation.

 

I don't know why this is so hard for people to comprehend.

[Toe]

@ColoradoHusk It's a weird loophole because it essentially allows the receiving team to force the kicking team to commit a penalty, when otherwise there would have been none. Can you name any other instance where that is the case?

[GBRFAN]

5 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Again, the player touching it from OOB makes the ball OOB, which then is treated as the ball kicking it OOB.  If a fumble doesn't touch the sideline, but is touched by a player who is OOB, the fumble is declared OOB.  It's the exact same situation.

 

I don't know why this is so hard for people to comprehend.

Dude sorry your not understanding my logic - I agree with you that the rules are being followed.  However as stated the kicking team did nothing incorrect.  In your fumble case the team with the ball made a mistake in coughing it up - the defense also made a mistake by not gaining control before being out of bounds so net result is possession stays the same.  in the discussed situation the kicking team made no mistake the receiving team made a play with in the rules and the kicking team is penalized.  those two situations are not similar or equal.

[ColoradoHusk]

1 minute ago, Toe said:

@ColoradoHusk It's a weird loophole because it essentially allows the receiving team to force the kicking team to commit a penalty, when otherwise there would have been none. Can you name any other instance where that is the case?

The kicking team is committing a penalty by kicking the ball out of bounds.  The ball is declared out of bounds when touched by a player on or outside the sideline.  The receiving team isn't "forcing" the penalty, the kicking team is receiving a justified penalty for kicking the ball out of bounds.  Any time the ball is touched by a player out of bounds, the ball is considered out of bounds.  The same rule would apply if the ball were touched by a player on the kicking team if the player touched the ball while on the sideline.

[ColoradoHusk]

1 minute ago, GBRFAN said:

Dude sorry your not understanding my logic - I agree with you that the rules are being followed.  However as stated the kicking team did nothing incorrect.  In your fumble case the team with the ball made a mistake in coughing in up - the defense also made a mistake by not gaining control before being out of bounds so net result is possession stays the same.  in the discussed situation the kicking team made no mistake the receiving team made a play with in the rules and the kicking team is penalized.  those two situations are not similar or equal.

The kicking team has kicked it out of bounds when the ball is touched by a player who is standing out of bounds.  The ball could be touched by a player from the receiving team or the kicking team, but if the ball is touched by someone out of bounds, the kick is declared out of bounds. 

[Toe]

@ColoradoHusk Except the kicking team didn't physically kick the ball out of bounds, it's only considered out of bounds because the receiving team essentially forced it to be. The kicking team's actions were completely legal until the receiving team did something to make it illegal, which is a weird loophole.

[GBRFAN]

1 minute ago, ColoradoHusk said:

The kicking team has kicked it out of bounds when the ball is touched by a player who is standing out of bounds.  The ball could be touched by a player from the receiving team or the kicking team, but if the ball is touched by someone out of bounds, the kick is declared out of bounds. 

 based on the rule yes - in reality no

 

If I was playing golf and hit it 2 feet from OB and we were playing lift clean and place - I then choose to drop it OB then I guess your logic would say that I hit my shot OB.  Lets move on....

[ColoradoHusk]

3 minutes ago, GBRFAN said:

 based on the rule yes - in reality no

 

If I was playing golf and hit it 2 feet from OB and we were playing lift clean and place - I then choose to drop it OB then I guess your logic would say that I hit my shot OB.  Lets move on....

The rules of golf and football are completely different.  The rules of golf have no relevancy to this discussion.

 

In football, any player standing out of bounds touching a loose ball makes the ball out of bounds.  It does not matter where the ball's location is.  The ball could be thrown and the ball is 3 feet from being "out of bounds", but if it's touched by a legal player who is out of bounds, the ball is considered out of bounds.  Some of you guys need to read the rule book.  https://cfo.arbitersports.com/Groups/104777/Library/files/2014 Plays inbounds outofbounds.pdf  

[ColoradoHusk]

12 minutes ago, Toe said:

@ColoradoHusk Except the kicking team didn't physically kick the ball out of bounds, it's only considered out of bounds because the receiving team essentially forced it to be. The kicking team's actions were completely legal until the receiving team did something to make it illegal, which is a weird loophole.

It could be the receiving team or the kicking team touching the ball while a player is OOB and it makes the kick illegal.  If there were a kickoff which were bouncing at the receiving team's 25 yard line, without any team establishing possession, and the ball is touched by anyone (regardless of team) who is out of bounds, the ball is declared out of bounds.  If the ball placement is worse than the receiving team's 35-yard line, the receiving team gets the ball at the 35-yard line due to the penalty assessed against the kicking team.

[GBRFAN]

1 minute ago, ColoradoHusk said:

The rules of golf and football are completely different.  The rules of golf have no relevancy to this discussion.

 

In football, any player standing out of bounds touching a loose ball makes the ball out of bounds.  It does not matter where the ball's location is.  The ball could be thrown and the ball is 3 feet from being "out of bounds", but if it's touched by a legal player who is out of bounds, the ball is considered out of bounds.  Some of you guys need to read the rule book.  https://cfo.arbitersports.com/Groups/104777/Library/files/2014 Plays inbounds outofbounds.pdf  

I have told you already that I agree that it is a rule and if you follow the rules it is a penalty -  you are RIGHT.  The golf example and the kickoff are referring to "reality" of where the ball is "physically" positioned in regards to the OB line.  The point being made is it is Obvious that it should be a rule that has a Clause.  The rules of golf have 34 simple rules and then there is another book related to decisions on the rules of golf that are about 200 pages.  This is an example of a similar situation - create a clause that ends this result and college football becomes a better game.

[ColoradoHusk]

4 minutes ago, GBRFAN said:

I have told you already that I agree that it is a rule and if you follow the rules it is a penalty -  you are RIGHT.  The golf example and the kickoff are referring to "reality" of where the ball is "physically" positioned in regards to the OB line.  The point being made is it is Obvious that it should be a rule that has a Clause.  The rules of golf have 34 simple rules and then there is another book related to decisions on the rules of golf that are about 200 pages.  This is an example of a similar situation - create a clause that ends this result and college football becomes a better game.

How would you apply this "clause"?  Where would you spot the ball if touched by a receiving player out of bounds?  You can't treat it like a punt going out of bounds because a punt is not a free kick like a kick off is.  A kickoff is a unique play, but is still grounded by simple rules of in-bounds and out of bounds.