Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc
If Out of Bounds is being beyond the confines of the playing field (as defined in NF: 1-1-2), where does someone return to, if not within the confines of the field of play? Jibberish works for some people, but not all.
|
I'd hate to break it to you, but not only does 1-1-2 not contain any definitions, it doesn't even mention out of bounds. OOB is actually defined in 2-29 and of course you just don't like what it says. As to where someone is returning to, as I said in just my last post giving further evidence you don't actually read what anyone is saying, is not OOB.
Quote:
Just a suggestion, but when your best possible explanation of something is more confusing and sounds sillier than your original observation, you might consider just not saying anything.
I have never suggested, "When what you say a rule means is the opposite of what it says", I have simply opined that the interpretation that a player, who has absolutely satisfied the requirements of becoming OOB, somehow loses that designation by simply jumping up into the air, while remaining outside the playing field, is simply inaccurate and makes absolutely no common sense or serves any purpose related to the game of football, and therefore I conclude is incorrect.
Forgive me for repeating myself, but if you can provide ANY rational explanation, or even suggestion, why such a contradictory concept should even be remotely considered, I'll be happy to reevaluate my position.
|
I agree that including airborne players who last touched OOB as OOB players is rational. That's the choice basketball made. However, it's not the choice that football made. Having OOB players only include those actually touching OOB is also a rational choice, your dislike of it notwithstanding.
You are ignoring the rule because you don't like it, not because it isn't rational.
Anyways, this will be my last post on the matter as it's clear your more interested in what you want the rules to be than what the rules actually are.