Violation?

[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?

[Jurassic Referee]

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?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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?

So you're saying that the violation is for illegally crossing the boundary. A player who is legally inbounds may not touch anyone/anything OOB, and a player who is legally OOB may not touch anyone/anything inbounds.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

So you're saying that the violation is for illegally crossing the boundary. A player who is legally inbounds may not touch anyone/anything OOB, and a player who is legally OOB may not touch anyone/anything inbounds.

No, I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying the criteria listed in rule 4-35 always apply and there's no contradiction anywhere when you do apply 'em. That was my point.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

No, I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying the criteria listed in rule 4-35 always apply and there's no contradiction anywhere when you do apply 'em. That was my point.

Well then you need an additional point. Player location alone doesn't explain the violation, nor why there's no contradiction.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

No, I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying the criteria listed in rule 4-35 always apply and there's no contradiction anywhere when you do apply 'em. That was my point.

4-35 says a player who is touching out of bounds is out of bounds.

9.2.5 B says A1 has the ball out of bounds but when he touches B1 inbounds he now has inbounds status.

Furthermore, 7-1-1 tells us that touching a person who is out of bounds does not cause a player who is inbounds to be out of bounds.

[Jurassic Referee]

You win.

I'm done.

It's a contradiction in Jarlandia.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It's a contradiction in Jarlandia.

That reminds me. I have to renew my passport. My new daughter-in-law is from China. My new son-in-law is from Australia. Maybe a side trip to Jarlandia would be fun. Is it difficult to get a tourist visa?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

4-35 says a player who is touching out of bounds is out of bounds.

9.2.5 B says A1 has the ball out of bounds but when he touches B1 inbounds he now has inbounds status.

Furthermore, 7-1-1 tells us that touching a person who is out of bounds does not cause a player who is inbounds to be out of bounds.

Yes, it's a contradiction. And?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yes, it's a contradiction. And?

And I thought that might be the reason for the confusion in the earlier post which resulted from the use of the phrase 100% out of bounds. Editorial revisions are made in the books pretty much every year. I thought this might be a likely place for one.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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?

Any other time, if a player is touching both places, he has out of bounds status.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Any other time, if a player is touching both places, he has out of bounds status.

Only if he's legally inbounds.