Violation?

[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?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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?

Get a visa to visit hell. Apparently one of the benefits of living there is you are never wrong.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Get a visa to visit hell.

To whom do I apply? Maybe Jurassic Referee can send me a travel brochure?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Get a visa to visit hell. Apparently one of the benefits of living there is you are never wrong.

Another benefit is that in Hell you only have to discuss rules and you don't have to have any meaningless and endless discussions on what might or might not be the meaning of any particular word. And oh yes, they do have blarges here in Hell too.

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

The rule is clear, so I'm not sure what sort of revision could possibly help. It's possible, but the confusion seems to stem from some sort of misconception that the ball's 3 dimmensional location is relevant.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The rule is clear, so I'm not sure what sort of revision could possibly help.

9-2-5: The thrower shall not carry the ball onto the court.

What does this mean? Thrower steps in with one foot. According to 4-35, this player is out of bounds. Has he carried the ball onto the court.

Proposed revision: The thrower shall not contact the inbounds area with the ball or any part of his person.