Originally Posted by ajmc
Perhaps someday, Mr. Crowder, I may be as omnipotent and all knowing as you (seem to think you are), but until then I'll just have to be satisfied being considered "otherwise intelligent" and muddking along as best I can to understand, rather than just read, these rules. Perhaps you might share some of your brilliance, with a less fortunate, and clarify a minor point about, "the case play I keep bringing up (you apparently believe) flies in the face of their interpretation".
I seem to recollect that the rules, rather clearly, indicate that the act of a player being forced OOB by an opponent, is ignored when that player returns in bounds at the first possible opportunity. I'm well aware my grasp of English may not be as acute as yours, but I was under the impression that "ignoring" something happened in this context equates, essentially, to that action not happening, at least to the point of affecting anything.
So, in your repetitive example, the forced OOB player's touching OOB did not render him OOB because his touching OOB was ignored due to his being forced out by an opponent, so as regards the rest of this example, he has NOT been considered OOB, which I believe is the essence of this particular rule.
You also suggest, somewhere in your kind instructions to us "otherwise intelligent" idiots, that a player forced OOB, who elects to stay OOB and return at his convenience somewhere else, would be guilty of Illegal Participation for returning inbounds and touching/catching a pass. A ruling I wholeheartedly agree with.
Here comes that logic block again, If we agree that OOB player (other than forced) cannot come back within the confines of the field and legally participate, why would a player who doesn't even bother to try and get back "inbounds" be allowed to participate by jumping up in the air, while still OOB, and redirect an errant pass to a teammate who had never gone OOB? That doesn't seem at all consistent, or sensible, at least to me.
Someone of your apparant (to you) superior knowledge and understanding should be able to simply explain the logic of that conclusion and help me find some semblance of logic in a one time (and never repeated) 2003 Case Book example, that may very likely have simply been a mistake, that people felt so obviously illogical, didn't merit formally correcting.
I must admit, and acknowledge that for someome who identifies himself as, "I'm not a FED guy... " it's really generous of you to share your knowledge and overall wonderfulness so freely.
|