Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc
The important thing is really whether anyone is comfortable with the opinion they've formed, and I am absolutely comfortable with my interpretation and the logic I've used to reach it.
|
I really can't stand it when someone reads the rules, invents some opinion that is contrary to those rules, and then justifies it by calling it interpretation.
Quote:
|
NF:2-29-1" A player or other person is out of bounds 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."
|
There is the rule. It tells you quite clearly whether a person is defined as Out Of Bounds.
Quote:
|
(it is my interpretation & belief) that when A88 first touched the ground out of bounds, he fulfilled the requirement of being out of bounds. What he does thereafter doesn't much matter.
|
At the moment he touched, you're right, he's out of bounds. But you've taken this to some bizarre extreme to think that a player once out of bounds is always out of bounds. Completely false, and not consistent with other rules in the book. One example - a player forced out, trying to come back in who leaps, catches, and lands in - is IN... but by "your interpretation" or logic, this player is OUT because he was out when he went out and what he does thereafter doesn't much matter.
Luckily, we have rules to tell us whether this airborne player is out. He's not - because he does not fulfill the definition of Out Of Bounds.