Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire
A88 has not met any of the requirements of 2-29-1 nor has the ball met the requirements of 2-29-3 at the point of touching. A88 has returned at the point of touching and is illegally participating.
B gets the choice: TD for A or the penalty.
The bottom line here is you are making up you own rule 2-29-1. Everyone else is using the one provided by the Fed.
|
Let's make sure we're addressing the same question before we start defining the "bottom line". The scenario I've been addressing relates to a player who runs OOB
completely on his own. No forcing out of any type. In running OOB he
repeatedly touches the ground OOB, satisfying
ALL THE NF:2-29-1 criteria for being OOB.
After, and while he remains, outside the field of play he jumps up into the air. The question is does he somehow retain the ability to legally participate, and affect, action simply because he has ceased touching the ground? All of the activity involved happens beyond the playing field boundry lines.
Please save yourself some wasted effort, I know exactly what NF:2-29-1, 2 &3 states and am
not disputing the wording, I do not agree with the interpretation of those words that suggests that simply because a player jumps up into the air while OOB, after having completed being OOB by touching the ground OOB, he can continue to influence play.
Try as I may, I am unable to make any sense whatsoever to interpreting this, otherwise simple and straightforward definition, to accomodate this interpretation. I am unable to imagine an explanation of this interpretation that is logical in
either a "football" sense or basic common sense. Thus far,
NOBODY has come even close to offering a rational explanation for this interpretation serving any possible purpose, other than a gramatical excuse, "because it says so".
Sorry, I don't believe, or accept, that football rules are deliberately crafted to make no sense and serve no purpose, although their are numerous examples where they are worded inartfully.
Any rule is only the written presentation of a thought, a thought intended to serve a purpose that is deemed necessary. I can't find the purpose in this interpretation.
So, if you really want to help me get to a different, "bottom line" show me where this "unique" interpretation makes the slightest bit of actual sense, either to the game, or in general. The arguments that this situation fits any existing penalty don't seem to hold water and allowing the results of such a play stand defies credulity, and the basic objective of the game (NF: 1-1-1). So, until I can rationally understand and explain otherwise, I'm comfortable with considering the situation as meeting the requirements, and intentions, of NF: 2-29-1. You go with what you're comfortable understanding and explaining.