[QUOTE=mbcrowder;688381]You know, my biggest fear, and the reason I didn't just start ignoring the idiots, was that an otherwise intelligent official might read their drivel and BELIEVE it. Please don't.
Quote:
|
Just read the book - the rulebook makes complete sense on it's own. It says a player is out of bounds (not BECOMES and out of bounds player, or anything denoting some continuing effect ... IS ) when he IS TOUCHING (not was touching or had touched in the past ... IS ) something out of bounds. there is no "inbounds". Just out of bounds and NOT out of bounds. Touching something outside the field of play or NOT touching something outside the field of play.
|
I agree wholeheartedly with the definition of OOB. I just don't think you can make the leap (NO PUN INTENDED) that because inbounds is not specifically defined that it means everything other than OOB.
Quote:
|
If the reverse was true, they would have said so. All chickens are birds does not mean all birds are chickens. .
|
Thanks, I can use that logic in my argument. See above.
Quote:
|
And consider the case play I keep bringing up that flies in the face of their (and now your) interpretation. A88 forced out of bounds. On his way back to the field, he leaps from OOB, catches the pass, and lands in bounds. THIS IS A CATCH. If what you said above is true, then this player, having not "reestablished himself" a la basketball in bounds is still out of bounds - so the ball would be when it touched him. The case play and AR proves this NOT to be true.
|
I'm just a lowly FED guy, don't know anything about NCAA, but I can't find the FED case you keep referring to - please help. Thanks.
I'm not saying your position doesn't have merit - it has certainly caused me to think, but I should have been from Missouri. You gotta show me.