[Husker] Rules Question

[Bapi Gupta]

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005, Dick Karre wrote:

> On the drive leading to Mizzou's first FG, Smith threw a pass on third 
> and 14 that was ruled complete. The replay clearly showed that the 
> receiver had stepped out of bounds before catching the ball (though 
> you'd never know it by listening to the Fox bozoes). Is that a 
> reviewable play? It must not be, because I can't believe the replay guys 
> missed it too. Not a big play in the overall scheme of things, but 
> annoying nonetheless. And are we ever happy to have Brad Smith right 
> where we want him - out of eligibility.
> Dick Karre dkarre at comcast.net

I noticed the same missed call immediately when I saw the play and didn't 
recall seeing the receiver blocked out of bounds.  It occurred at about 
1:00 left in the first quarter and MU's receiver is named Arnold Britt and 
he was tackled by Daniel Bullocks.  I just checked it on my DVR and both 
of his feet were out, at different times, and he wasn't blocked out.

Anyhow, I thought the play was pretty important because it allowed 
Missouri to attempt the next play, a key 4th down conversion that led to 
their FG.  At the time, that play gave Missouri a huge momentum boost.

Looking through this document is hell, but you can find the rule deep in 
this PDF:

http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2003/2003_football_rules.pdf#search='college%20football%20rules%20out%20of%20bounds%20receiver'

It states:

"Eligibility Lost by Going Out of Bounds
ARTICLE 4: No eligible offensive player who goes out of bounds during a 
down shall touch a legal forward pass in the field of play or end zones or 
while airborne until it has been touched by an opponent or official (A.R. 
7-3-4-I-III).

Exception: This does not apply to an eligible offensive player who 
attempts to return inbounds immediately after being blocked out of bounds 
by an opponent (A.R. 7-3-4-IV).
PENALTY - Loss of down at the previous spot"

The wording has been changed from "player" to "reeciver" in the 2005 
rules, but the context is the same.  (This is just an amusing site):

http://www.onour.com/oafo/2004_new_rules.htm

Bapi