You keep trying to put words in my mouth KWH and it's just not working. Nobody has suggested making up our own interpretations about anything. You have decreed that an interpretation I happen to disagree with MUST be accepted. Personally, I don't think it makes any sense and do not agree that you are anywhere near correct. I have asked you repeatedly to explain your interpretation and thus far YOU HAVE BEEN UNABLE, or unwilling to even attempt to do so.

If you can't, or won't, defend or explain your own interpretation, why should I accept it's worth following? What you've offered thus far has simply failed to persuade, or impress me that your interpretation is correct. You can bark about it all you want, but barking alone doesn't cut it. If you're so damn "right", why are you so inept at simply explaining why your version makes sense?

All you have to do is explain your position, rationally, without defying common sense and logic or demonstrate how your version makes any sense in relation to the game of football, and I'll be more than happy to consider what you can offer. Because someone else, "told you so" won't do it.

Don't know about you, but I have never ruled anything, "on the fly" and have never hesitated to stop and make sure whatever I'm ruling on is correct and is agreed upon by the other officials I'm working with. Either they convince me, or I convince them and logic, common sense and the flow of the game are considered factors if a definitive answer is not otherwise available.

I can't guarantee that every coach I've had to explain something to agreed with my assessment, but I can assure you they understood my explanation of why I made my decision. Polling, isn't going to change wrong into right, it just quantifies the number who were wrong and those who are right.

Legal Play
 

This just in!

August 2009 REFEREE Magazine (Page 20) prints this exact play.

Ruling - LEGAL PLAY.

Before some of you start slamming REFEREE Magazine my understanding is all the case plays they print are now reviewed by the NFHS prior to printing!

Did George Demetriou write this case play? If so, he changed his mind from last year about this being IP. I wonder if that play is still in the 2009 Redding Guide.

Welpe, you are mistaken.
 

Welpe-
1) George did not write this case play but I know who did!
2) I do not know where or from whom you are getting your information, but the information you are providing is inaccurate! Why? Because, other than the page number and the example number the play and the ruling has remained unchanged in the 2007, 2008, and 2009 versions of :The Redding Study Guide to NFHS Football by Geroge Demetriou:

EXAMPLE 5-10: Wide reciever A83 runs along the sideline and after taking two steps out of bounds, jumps. While in the air, he (a) catches the ball and lands in bounds, or (b) bats the ball to A87 who catches the ball, and then A83 lands out of bounds. RULING: In both (a) and (b), the ball remains live and the catch is legal. In (a), A83 is guilty of illegal participation.

Also note, this is the exact same play provided in the original post of this thread. (138 Posts before this one)

Source:
2007 Redding Guide Page 38, Example 5-9
2008 Redding Guide Page 40, Example 5-10
2008 Redding Guide Page 40, Example 5-10

Kevin, I responded on RefStripes. I guess I didn't remember the play correctly. Thanks for the correction.

Since you know the author of this interpretation, why don't you ask him to explain the logic, sense or reasoning behind his interpretation?

Alf-
I did just as you ask;
The author based his interpretation solely on the wording in the NFHS Rules Book!

I don't agree with this statement.

A player who is stepping on the sideline and the field of play is out of bounds. If he was previously running down the sideline out of bounds and takes one step in the field of play while maintaining contact with the sideline, he is still out of bounds. He has also returned to the field may be susceptable to IP by rule.

A player is either out of bounds or not out of bounds (which is not the same as in bounds). A player who returns to the field of play can do so while still remaining out of bounds. An airborne player who is not touching anything cannot be out of bounds by rule.

Instead of devising a rule set based on what you think it should be, why don't you use the rules that NF provides?

Unfortunately, the NF rules have a "hole" here - they do not define what "inbounds" is, nor do they give the status of a player who is airborne. We can assume, reason and speculate on the status, but this play will remain the subject of arguement and discussion until the NF either revises the rules or provides an official interpretation on their website or in one of their publications.

What's the record for posts on one topic?

Well there was an NF casebook play up through 2003 that said an airborne player previously touching out of bounds was not out of bounds. There has been no rule change, editorial change or retraction published by the NF.

On something this fundamental, that is good enough for me.

I'd love to see it. That might settle it if someone still had the case play.

Originally posted by Walt in another thread. This CB play was also in the 2003 casebook and is the foundation for the Redding Guide play that started all of this. :)

In the original post, the question was - receiver A 83 who runs along sideline takes two steps out of bounds and jumps while in air and bats the ball to A87 inbounds who catches the ball and then A83 returns to the ground out of bounds - is A83 guilty of illegal particpation?

Per the Case Book, in (a) and (b), A83 is guilty of illegal participation so the play gets called back. He was not out of bounds when he touched the pass, however, he is guilty of illegal participation.

I'm not going to go back and read all 145 posts, but I do beleive there were some who were saying this play was legal.

So while the catch was legal and the bat was legal, the touching was IP so the play comes back, correct?

That's really too bad. I was hoping whomever issued that ruling would have the courage of his convictions to stand behind his judgment and simply explain his thinking, which may have answered a lot of questions and eliminated a lot of doubt.

My question is not an argument with the rule, although I believe it could be a lot better worded, it's with this particular interpretation of what the rule is trying to establish. I understand the rule specifically states a person is OOB when he is touching anything OOB, but the rule does not require, nor even suggest, that this "touching" be continual to maintain his being OOB.

That logic, or lack thereof, seems to be the sticking point. I also understand there is no definition of being, "Inbounds" to fall back on, so common sense and basic logic seem necessary and appropriate. There is nothing, anywhere in the rules of the game, the history of the game or the actual application of the game to suggest that such a convoluted notion as a player somehow, regaining his inbound status by simply jumping up into the air AFTER rendering himself OOB (by stepping OOB).

This isn't rocket science or some extreme, or twisted, version of English literature. The rules are intended to be simple and clear so they are well, and easily, understood, rather than adhering to the most extreme interpretation, that serves no relevant purpose .

Our role is to simply insure that the rules of the game are followed for the primary objective of seeing that neither team gains some "unfair" advantage over it's opponent. Our role does NOT include developing and strictly enforcing obscure interpretations to try and look smart.

We don't have to agree with every rule interpretation, to properly enforce it, but I am comfortable that no rules were deliberately created to be confusing, lack all common sense and defy rational explanation. Interpretations that are not explainable are simply incorrect.

The language used in the rule is "is touching". That is the present tense of the verb "touch". If a player is no longer in contact with the sideline (ie he goes airborne), it does not make grammatical sense to say that the player is touching the sideline. In that case, the player touched the sideline (the past tense of the verb).

Think of it this way. Put your hand on your desk. You are touching the desk. I would say, "Al is touching the desk." Remove your hand from your desk. It is not accurate for me to say "Al is touching the desk." It would be proper for me to say "Al touched the desk."

That is how I read the definition of out of bounds when I read 2-29-1:

"A player or other person is out of bounds when any part of the person is touching anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside the sideline or end line."