[KWH]

I'm with Berkut!
And I would add there is Rules Book support for Berkut's ruling.

As for Alf, I can find no Rules Book support for:
"a player who has clearly established himself OOB, continues to be OOB as long as he remains OOB". and, absent of rules book support, Alf's interpretation is incorrect.


Officials are hired to officiate the Rules of the Game even if they personally do not agree with them.
For example, I personally do not think that a player who has established himself as an OOB player should be able to leap in the air and bat a football and the football remain live as the player is not, by definition OOB. However, since I am hired to officiate the game as written in the NFHS rules book, I do not have the luxury of relying on logic, common sense, familiarity with the basic intent of the game of football, superflous assumptions, foundational basics of the game, or magic 8-balls.
Rather, because I am hired to officiate the game based on NFHS rules, the play must be ruled as legal for there is nothing to specifically state that it is illegal.

How can I arrive at this conclusion? Simple!
The answer is found in the well written and often overlooked Rule 2-37 which is the definition of a Rule.

So, in conclusion, based on Rules 2-29-1, 2-29-3, and 2-37 the play is legal! And for clarification, football officials are not within their juristriction to tell a coach, "Thank you, here's how we going to rule on that today" and then explain your understanding of the rule to him, and how you will enforce it, as doing so would be a violation of the written rules, foolhardy, and a bit askew!

Read Rule 2, Read Rule 2, Read Rule 2

Nuff said