Quote:
Originally Posted by waltjp
Is the rule book too obtuse for you?
BTW - what do you have to back up your ridiculous opinion?
|
Just that old, "common sense and logic thing", Walt. It's not about being "obtuse" (nice word) or verbosity, it's simply a matter of understanding the game and what it's all about. You keep reaching for analogies and each one you grasp is further from relating.
It's not about scoring 1 point versus 3, not about a player safety issue like grasping a face mask. It's more about NF: 1-1-1 and 1-1-2 than all the nonsense you're trying to find.
I can't determine when NF:2-29 was last revised, if it ever was revised but the Oficials manual suggests the rule regarding "going out of bounds and returning applies to A or K only" was part of the 1991 revisions. I wonder why nobody apparently had a problem with this whole situation until a couple of years ago when someone (don't know who exactly) floated this nonsense about a player who has clearly established himself as being OOB, somehow majically retained the status of being Inbounds, by simply jumping up into the air, while remaining OOB, because the wording is "Is touching" rather than just "touched".
Please note, the rule doesn't say anything about "continuing to touch", it simply states when that player is touching he becomes OOB, as opposed to when he might be airborne beyond the sideline/endline but has yet to touch down. However, when he is touching he becomes OOB. Where does it mention anything about him no longer being OOB if his touching stops or is interrupted?
Much more importantly, what could conceivably be the reason for allowing this player, having satisfied the requirements of being OOB, to lose that designation, which according to your daffy interpretation allows him to participate in the game, even though he is still clearly outside the confines of a "retangular field 360 by 160 feet? (NF:1-1-2) Sorry, there's that common sense and logic thing again. If you've got additional insight, I'm willing to consider it, but please spare me all your gramatical silliness.
Did the game change? The object of the game change? I don't think so. For me, it's just a lot easier to understand that this "unique" interpretation, and what it wouild suggest would happen, is just so silly, so contradictory, so ridiculous it's simply NOT right.
If you want to believe that is what NF: 2-29 is telling us, you can believe it. I do not accept your interpretation of what you conclude 2-29 instructs.