[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by ajmc

JimD, forgive me for sounding harsh, but your assessment seems like a perfect example of how reading way too much into the verbiage of a (any) rule can take a relatively simple, clearly defined principle and try and turn it into total confusion and mush.

Considering the original example, am I correct in understanding you are actually suggesting that, "A50 reaches into the field (staying out of bounds) and pulls B99 down to the ground at the A-30 yard line" is legal because A50 did not step back inside the line before making contact?

If so, I suggest you read section 9.6 of the Case Book, from a perspective of trying to understand what is intended rather than trying to find some incoccuous loophole that exists only in your mind because of your hyper-technical interpretation of the verbiage. As I understand your concept, an offensive player could legally exit the field at one 10 yard line, shadow the runner while OOB (unobstructed of course) down to the other 10 yard line, reach back over the sideline and legally contact a defender pursuing the runner, and be fine as long as he doesn't step back inbounds. (Note: the language of 9.6.1 requiring a player, "blocked OOB by an opponent and returns inbounds during the down, he shall return at the first opportunity", technically only restricts a player blocked OOB)

9.6.1 Situation A "Comment" is really all you need to read, if you reflect on what message the comment is trying to impart, rather than nitpicking the words selected to impart it.

Please, this isn't rocket science and you can't twist it into flying us to the moon.

My goodness! I was not trying to find some innocuous loophole using hyper-technical interpretations. I was just trying to figure out if a player who steps out of bounds can touch a ball that's still inbounds without penalty. Say if a player steps out in diving for a fumble, but manages to touch a ball that's still inbounds or perhaps reaches back to bat a pass that's still inbounds, is that IP? Even reading the comments in the Case Book 9-6, I think he can do it legally.