AJMC-
Consider this.
If you are a rule book guy, you almost certainly would have to agree that
by definition (Rule 2-29) the player was
NOT Out of Bounds. With all due respect, you continue to reach and search for a definition of an
in bounds player however, unfortunatly, none exsists.
Additionally, you have formed a conclusion that if a player is not out of bounds he
MUST then be in-bounds. Unfortunatly, as much as you want it to be, your conclusion is not the conclusion of and is in direct conflict with the current NFHS Rules Book.
And by the way, just because you "don the stripes" does not by any strech of the imagination mean you are:
"empowered to rule as you think you should" as you have stated, rather,
you are required to rule by the rule book.
Last but not least, for you to suggest Roger's and Georges ruling in the Redding Guide 'makes no sense" is silly. This play/action has been around for years, and the ruling is always the same and for the same reason. It is still referred to as Rule 2-29!
If you don't like the ruling, (which is abundantly apparrent) there is a process, draft a rule change proposal, (make sure dot all your i's and cross all your t's) and submit it to your state association for possible consideration by the NFHS committee next January. The NFHS is a grass-roots organization and you are most certainly
empowered to submit any change proposal you like, but it must be signed off by your state.
-Kevin