Touching the ball to the ground.

[insatty]

I tend to agree with Mike Sears's analysis, but the lawyer part of me is troubled. If the ball is part of the runner's hand, the the ball is live if the ball and nothing else touches the ground. But if the ball is part of the runner's "person" in Mike's analysis, then the ball is dead under NFHS rules. But Mike's analysis begs the question: Is the ball part of the runner's hand or "person"? Since my organization and my white hat considers the ball live, I consider the ball live in this circumstance, but I wonder academically.

For instance, a receiver that dives for and possesses the ball between his hands in the air but allows the ball to touch the ground as the receiver falls does not make a catch under that definition and the ball is dead. By parity of reasoning, if the ball were considered part of the receiver's hand as in Mike's analysis, this receiver would have made a legal catch. So Mike's analysis contains a fault.

I must be missing something, but I can't figure out what.