Quote:
Originally Posted by Berkut
Where is that in the rules?
The rules state that a player is OOB as long as he is touching something OOB, right?
It doesn't say anything about him staying OOB when he isn't touching something OOB - why would you assume that there is a "foundational basic" of the game that isn't mentioned in the rulebook, when the rulebook specifically does mention the rather specific definition?
I think I must be missing something here - what is it?
|
I think here is what's missing - There is no defenition of inbounds in the rule book.
This whole discussion revolves around a player who is out of bounds and who then jumps in the air. Unfortunately, there is no rule coverage to define his status.
Is he inbounds? Don't know. He could be based on a logic assumption that if he isn't out, then he must be in (the only two states the rules acknowlege).
Is he still out? Not sure - he's not touching anything so presumably he's not still out, although that would seem the most logical conclusion. Did the rules writers mean to be that restrictive when they wrote the rule or were they just trying to define when he should be considered to have gone out?
Is he in some in-between state? That seems the most unlikely. There is no rule support for the existance of a neither-in-nor-out state, and it seems unlikely the rules makers ever imagined such a state. If they did have such an odd state in mind, I would think they would have mentioned it. I think this status is the least likely possibility.
Anyway, because of the above, the play is open to individual interpretation. I've yet to see a reference to an NF rule or interpretation that clears it up. I know KWH strongly feels this is a legal play, and I'm fine with that. I'd call it "incomplete" because that's what I think is the proper call. I may well be wrong, but I don't think so.
I'm not saying anyone is wrong, except when they say their answer is the "correct or approved" rule. There isn't one that I've seen yet.