Quote:
Originally Posted by KWH
Alf-
I did just as you ask;
The author based his interpretation solely on the wording in the NFHS Rules Book!
|
That's really too bad. I was hoping whomever issued that ruling would have the courage of his convictions to stand behind his judgment and simply explain his thinking, which may have answered a lot of questions and eliminated a lot of doubt.
My question is not an argument with the rule, although I believe it could be a lot better worded, it's with this particular interpretation of what the rule is trying to establish. I understand the rule specifically states a person is OOB when he is
touching anything OOB, but the rule does not require, nor even suggest, that this "touching" be continual to maintain his being OOB.
That logic, or lack thereof, seems to be the sticking point. I also understand there is no definition of being, "Inbounds" to fall back on, so common sense and basic logic seem necessary and appropriate. There is nothing, anywhere in the rules of the game, the history of the game or the actual application of the game to suggest that such a convoluted notion as a player somehow, regaining his inbound status by simply jumping up into the air
AFTER rendering himself OOB (by stepping OOB).
This isn't rocket science or some extreme, or twisted, version of English literature. The rules are intended to be simple and clear so they are well, and easily, understood, rather than adhering to the most extreme interpretation, that serves no relevant purpose .
Our role is to simply insure that the rules of the game are followed for the primary objective of seeing that neither team gains some "unfair" advantage over it's opponent. Our role does NOT include developing and strictly enforcing obscure interpretations to try and look smart.
We don't have to agree with every rule interpretation, to properly enforce it, but I am comfortable that
no rules were deliberately created to be confusing, lack all common sense and defy rational explanation. Interpretations that are not explainable are simply incorrect.