Quote:
Originally Posted by waltjp
Nowhere in the rule book or case book is it suggested that a player needs to re-establish his position inbounds after touching out of bounds. If you can find anything so support your own personal interpretation I'd be happy to consider it.
|
Walt, I understand what the rule book says, and what is says is that for a player to
become OOB, he needs to touch OOB, and I have no problem with that. Nowhere, that I can find, does it state or even suggest that to
remain OOB, that touching must be constant.
On the contrary, the notion that by somehow leaping up into the air,
after establishing himself as being OOB would somehow automatically revert his status back to being inbounds, just doesn't make a lick of common sense nor offer any reasonable logic that follows the general flow of any rule regarding being OOB.
People who are OOB are not supposed to participate in the game,
participation is reserved for those who are inbounds (legally). That's not rocket science. I think we all agree a player is either inbounds or OOB. There's no mystery associated with this, or shouldn't be.
If a player is (touching) OOB, he's OOB and his touching a live ball, kills the ball. That's crystal clear and makes perfect sense. If a player goes OOB, then returns inbounds (under the wrong conditions) he comits a foul if he subsequently participates (interferes with) in the play. The logic is clear, when you're OOB you can't play and if you touch the ball, you kill it.
How does reversing this logic and concept make any sense by suggesting, a player (who has clearly established himself as being OOB) can somehow reestablish his status as being inbounds by simply jumping into the air (while OOB).
Trying to apply Illegal Participation to a situation like this seems way too harsh, because the vast majority of situations is simply someone trying to make a play and inadvertently, accidentally or even deliberately stepping on a line. Why would the rules want to provide this ridiculous advantage?
Logic, common sense and the written rule dictate that a live ball touching a player OOB is a dead ball. What possible difference could it make whether that player is still touching the ground or jumping above it when he touches the ball?
If ever there was an example of reading way more into a rule than was ever intended, this has to be it. When something doesn't make
ANY SENSE it can't be right.