Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref
I assume he meant that the player was touching only out of bounds, as opposed to the foot extending across the line.
Good question, actually. By definition, (4-35-2) When a player is touching....out of bounds the player is ........... out of bounds.
Yet, according to 9.2.5 B it is a violation when A1 touches B1 (who is inbounds)
it is a violation, because the touch gives A1 inbounds status.
A contradiction, is it not?
|
Why is it a contradiction?
All you're doing is using the exact same inbounds/OOB criteria on
different rules. You use the exact same status definitions for a player in-bounds going OOB as you do for a player OOB coming inbounds, don't you?