Robert, I hear what you're saying.
AJ - I appreciate the kinder tone, and promise you I've already lasted "long enough".
And I realize the OP stretches realisticness quite a bit. But the idea that you should ignore a rule because you think it seems unrealistic, or because you personally have decided that the rule as written is not what they meant to write, is an extremely slippery slope.
Further, in THIS case, deciding arbitrarily to either replace the word IS with HAS, or inventing the concept of having to reestablish yourself inbounds once you go out of bounds is contrary to caseplay (the one Welpe has posted a few times.)
Quote:
9.6.1 Sit D
Wide receiver A1 runs a pass route along the sideline. He takes two steps out of bounds and goes airborne. While in the air he: (a) bats the ball to A2 who catches the ball; or (b) catches the ball and lands inbounds; or (c) catches the ball and lands out of bounds.
Ruling:
In (a) and (b), the ball remains live and the catch is legal. A1 was not out of bounds when he touched the pass, however, he is guilty of illegal participation in both (a) and (b). In (c), the ball is dead and there is no catch or foul. (2-4-1; 2-28; 4-3)
|