Out of bounds ruling?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I thought it was in the 90s ...

You could be right. Like I said, ancient times.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Did a coach get Td up every time it was applied?

It really wasn't a big deal at the time.

Team A inbounder throws the ball and it hits a wall out of bounds. Team B gets the ball at the original throwin spot.

Team A inbounder throws the ball and it hits the scorer's table out of bounds. Team B gets the ball at the original throwin spot.

Team A inbounder throws the ball and it hits the police officer in the corner out of bounds. Team B gets the ball at the original throwin spot.

Team A inbounder throws the ball and it hits a coach out of bounds. Team B gets the ball at the original throwin spot.

Team A inbounder throws the ball and it hits a substitute on the bench out of bounds. Team B gets the ball at the original throwin spot.

Team A inbounder throws the ball and it hits an opponent player out of bounds. Team B gets the ball at the original throwin spot.

Who's going to complain? Do you really think that coaches are that smart?

[BlueDevilRef]

Billy, I'm having trouble figuring out how these are different from rules as written today, except the last one. All the others would still be applied the same, right?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

Billy, I'm having trouble figuring out how these are different from rules as written today, except the last one. All the others would still be applied the same, right?

Correct. And I don't believe that last one was a rule, but rather, an ancient casebook interpretation, that changed a long time ago.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

Billy, I'm having trouble figuring out how these are different from rules as written today, except the last one. All the others would still be applied the same, right?

It's (more-or-less -- I didn't get out the exact wording to see if this is exact) ust a conflict between two rules -- "causing the ball to go OOB", and "not throwing the ball so it's touched inbounds." For a couple of years, FED chose to say the latter had precedence.

And, it applied whether the player was from team A or team B.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's (more-or-less -- I didn't get out the exact wording to see if this is exact) ust a conflict between two rules -- "causing the ball to go OOB", and "not throwing the ball so it's touched inbounds." For a couple of years, FED chose to say the latter had precedence. And, it applied whether the player was from team A or team B.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It always amazes me that some vestige of this ancient rule, in one form, or another, hangs around even though the rule changed over thirty years ago.