Quote:
Originally Posted by Berkut
I am not sure I understand this.
Football is a game defined by the rules under which it is played - there is no "logic" to it, per se - only rules. .
|
Well, I guess I've always considered that the rules of this game were intended to be logical and followed various patterns that make it understandable, somewhat predictable and striving towards logical objectives. I recognize, and appreciate, the fairly consistent difficulty in writing rules to avoid confusion or deliberately create circumstances that may inadvertently create unnecessary confusion.
The rule is question uses the word "touching" in a way that offers multiple possibilities. Interpretations can sometimes be stretched to varying degrees, which doesn't necessitate stretching interpretations to the most outlandish degree, which is where I would place the notion that by jumpimg up into the air (no longer touching) after satisfying the requirements to being OOB creates some momentary return to being inbounds.
I used the word ridiculous because I thought "stupid" would be unnecessarily harsh, but my vocabulary has limits. Rightly or wrongly, I have never considered football, or it's rules, rocket science, and I don't believe the intent of it's rule makers is to make any rule unecessarily complicated, vague or subject to irrational interpretation.
Football has two directional entities; in-bounds and OOB and appears to otherwise consider these two "places" separate and distinct from each other. I see no relevant purpose to support the notion that the otherwise bright line drawn between these two statuses would be intended to be blurred by such a unique interpretation. Therefore, until being persuaded there is some purpose or intent to supprt such an interpretation, I rely on logic and common sense to reject it.
You are obviously free to do as you so choose.