Catch?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Interesting. So if you get under the player who caught the ball and "volleyball" him upward to where he lands out of bounds, that's not a carry-out.

No.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But if he catches the ball while moving toward the sideline, and you catch him before he comes down, and his momentum takes him out of bounds, that is a carry-out even if you didn't exert any upward force on him?

I really do not know what this means. I just know I would have to "catch" you for your forward progress to be stopped. Just hitting someone and them going out of bounds is not enough.

Again, do not over complicate this.

Peace

[ajmc]

For what it may be worth (which isn't very much at all)

As per Funk & Wagnalls, "Carry 1. To bear from one place to another; transport, convey". For the linguists among us, there are 21 examples of how the word may be used.

"Bear - 1. To support; hold up, 2. to carry; convey" (there are 22 additional examples)

"convey - 1. to carry from one poit to another, transport"(only 5 examples)

[Welpe]

What does Funk and Wagnall have to say about the phrase "is touching"?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Welpe

What does Funk and Wagnall have to say about the phrase "is touching"?

I'm not sure Funk & Wagnall covers that, but we find helpful guidance in The NFHS "Game Official's Manual" advises (bottom, page 5); "Game Officials must have a football sense which supersedes the technical application of the rules so that the game goes smoothly. Game Officials are expected to exercise good judgment in applying the rules." It goes on to suggest, "The protection and welfare of the player is paramount and with this there can be no compromise."

Of course, no advice applies to every situation equally, or is absolute.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I just know I would have to "catch" you for your forward progress to be stopped.

I don't think that's either sufficient or necessary. You can catch something without stopping its progress in any direction. You can also stop something's progress in a direction w/o catching it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I don't think that's either sufficient or necessary. You can catch something without stopping its progress in any direction. You can also stop something's progress in a direction w/o catching it.

Well the overall point is the rule was changed to take away leeway to decide if they would have come down in-bounds, instead of actually coming in-bounds. It is basically that simple to me.

Peace