Quote:
Originally Posted by KWH
[B]
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 |
Although Jim D has subsequently corrected your mistatements above, the smugness of you conclusions, seems worthy of a response. For the record, I absolutely disagree with your assessment that the language of 2.29 refutes my primary contention. Although I agree 2.29 could be rewritten to be more specific, and perhaps inclusive, I do not find it's meaning at all difficult to include the simple notion that once a player goes OOB, he is OOB until he subsequently becomes In-bounds.
Long ago, I reached a general conclusion that all of the rules of football each have some purpose, some objective, some reason related to the fair and equitable playing of the game. Unfortunately, some rules are not written as consicely or clearly as they might have been, but I am convinced there is logic, reason and purpose for every rule.
At times, not nearly enough for some, rules are subject to modification and further explanation, but I do not believe the intent of any rule is to be needlessly silly or counterproductive nor our rules makers deliberately try and confuse or mislead interested parties.
I do believe the rule makers value the judgment, common sense and the understanding of fair play and the intent of the game field officials employ to enforce each rule as it was intended. Although I've repeatedly asked for some evidence of ANY logical purpose, ANY hint of common or practical sense, or ANY rational reason to explain why a player who has already gone OOB, could somehow retain, or temprarily regain, an In-bounds status by simply jumping up into the air, none has been offered.
I understand the logic and rational of why a player is considered "different" when he goes OOB, because it's simple, logical and makes perfect sense in relation to the flow of the game. The game of football is not rocket science, not the difference between guilt or innocense in a capitol trial nor is it intended to be.
Each rule must have a purpose, an objective, that makes sense to the operation of the game. My limited comprehension ability fails to uncover any possible purpose, any rational objective, any logic, any contribution to the flow of the game that your interpretation, of this rather simple rule, would provide.
As I've previously suggested, reasonably politely, as officials we ARE absolutely empowered to make rulings as we believe they are intended to be made, and we are fully accountable for all decisions we render. If you are comfortable rendering a decision you are not capable of explaining in terms of basic common sense and logic, rather than reason the purpose of the rule because of an obscure interpretation that defies common sense and logic, that's on you.
As stated previously, if you can offer some additional purpose, reason, objective or benefit to the flow of the game that your interpretation offers, I'll be willing to reconsider my position.