|
Despite all your empty bluster, KWH, you never seem to try and explain, much less justify, your (dare I say, silly) interpretation of NF: 2-29-1, other than declaring your perception must automatically be correct, "becuase (in your opinion) it says so". I don't think it "says" what you think, at all.
Despite a long history of, somewhat indelicate verbiage being selected to explain various issues, I repect the NF Rule writers efforts in trying to establish rules that are relevant, make sense to the game of football and overall follow a pattern of basic common sense. I realize their job is not an easy one, given all the verbiage experts that are so quick to offer criticism.
My interpretation, of the relatively simple rule you choose to read otherwise, is simply that, as the rule states, ""A player or person is out of bounds (OOB)when any part of the person is touching anything, other than another player or game official, that is on or outside the sideline or end line."
I understand that person only becomes OOB when he touches OOB, meaning that someone leaping from inbounds to OOB would not be considered OOB until he touches OOB. However, I don't see where anything says, or even hints that such touching must be continual to maintain the OOB status. That appears to be a conclusion you have somehow arrived at, which thus far has defied explanation.
So I ask myself, "Why wouldn't it say that"? My conclusion is that such an observation is so obvious, actually stating it might be considered offensive to those whose message the rule is intended for. Consider, NF: 2-34-1 defines "player possession", but doesn't seem to necessitate adding that such possession exists only so long as it's continual, because that also seems really obvious to anyone who has the barest understanding of the game.
With all you bluster, sarcasim and failed attempts at humor, you have never disputed that your contention, which amounts to someone who has already clearly established himself as being OOB, can lose that status by jumping up in the air, makes absolutely no common sense, serves no recognizeable purpose as related to the game of football, or on the contrary, needlesslessly contradicts a basic premis of the game, that players are either in bounds, or OOB. Football rules, in general, tend to be either/or, black/white, yes/no situations, which would seem to carry over, and make sense when related to, inbounds/OOB.
Perhaps, I'm just not smart enough to grasp the logic, some benefit, or any rational reason of an interpretation, such as yours, serving any purpose or reason, whatsoever.
This would be a perfect opportunity for you to educate me, or at least offer some semblance of logic to persuade me to recognize some reason, some logic, some purpose for arriving at such an interpretation, as yours, to help me accept it and considering it credible. Any help you can offer will be appreciated.
|