Reddings guide illegal participation

[Mike L]

who knew that "is touching" could be such a hard concept to grasp?

[Welpe]

What I do know is that I haven't talked this much about touching since high school.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

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?

Here is the other point of contention. The current Redding Guide case play goes into more detail than the 2003 CB play did. I am focusing more on the airborne player being out of bounds or not angle.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Mike L

who knew that "is touching" could be such a hard concept to grasp?

I think we agree that when the player touched anything OOB, he became OOB. Where we part ways is over how, or more importantly why, you presume he would regain a status of being inbounds, when he simply jumps up into the air while remaining outside (beyond) the sideline/endline?

If you accept that rules are made for some logical purpose that advances the playing of the game, you should be able to offer some logical basis for considering your interpretation as being rational. If you can't, you just have to question the interpretation.

We do not have to agree with the logic or rational for a rule, to be willing to enforce it, but there should be SOME logic or rational involved to consider an interpretation enforceable.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I think we agree that when the player touched anything OOB, he became OOB.

Not quite. The reading of the very definition does not lend OOB to being a persistent state but rather a volatile state that exists only as long as a specific condition is being met.

Why are you choosing to ignore the straight forward language in the rule? "Is touching" is very specific unless you disagree with my previous post about the plain English definition of what "is touching" means?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Not quite. The reading of the very definition does not lend OOB to being a persistent state but rather a volatile state that exists only as long as a specific condition is being met.

Why are you choosing to ignore the straight forward language in the rule? "Is touching" is very specific unless you disagree with my previous post about the plain English definition of what "is touching" means?

I'm talking about a football rule and how the way some choose to interpret it makes no sense relating to the game, defies logic and offers no rational purpose, and really don't get all that worked up about some notion about, " a persistent state but rather a volatile state that exists only as long as a specific condition is being met."

[mikesears]

Originally Posted by ajmc

the way some choose to interpret it makes no sense relating to the game, defies logic and offers no rational purpose, and really don't get all that worked up about some notion about, " a persistent state but rather a volatile state that exists only as long as a specific condition is being met."

I took the liberty of editing your post.

It should look like this:

the way MOST choose to interpret it makes no sense (to me) relating to the game (as I think it should be called), defies (my) logic, and offers no rational purpose (in my opinion).....


Your OPINION of logic, sense, and rationality is of little value just as trying to show you our logic, rationale, and sense is. Frankly, I believe the rule is crystal clear. It's time to quit saying the same things over and over.

On to better topics. This one is obviously dead.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I'm talking about a football rule and how the way some choose to interpret it makes no sense relating to the game, defies logic and offers no rational purpose, and really don't get all that worked up about some notion about, " a persistent state but rather a volatile state that exists only as long as a specific condition is being met."

I don't understand you. You ask for logic, reasonings, etc to support the interpretation and then you reject them with vague terms, relying on your supposed common sense but you don't offer any real argument. You really don't seem to want an explanation.

Do you have a response to my post about the present tense or are you going to ignore it?

[jaybird]

Where we part ways is over how, or more importantly why, you presume he would regain a status of being inbounds,...

I don't recall anyone saying that. What has been said and written in the rule book, is if a player is airborne he is no longer considered out of bounds by definition. By rule, to be out of bounds, a player must be touching something OOB, but since he is not touching, he is not OOB.

Simple, basic, easy to read English. Accept it and quit trying to insist on it conforming to your "logic".

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I don't understand you. You ask for logic, reasonings, etc to support the interpretation and then you reject them with vague terms, relying on your supposed common sense but you don't offer any real argument. You really don't seem to want an explanation.

Do you have a response to my post about the present tense or are you going to ignore it?

Sounds like you're starting to understand...

[ppaltice]

I would say that 'where we part ways' is that some people insist there should be a player status 'inbounds' and others are fine that the NF rules neither defines nor uses the term 'inbounds player.'

Within this thread we have seen the term 'inbounds player' defined and have had non-existant rules invented to utilize this term.

Look at 2-29, 2-32, and 9-6. These rules define a player out of bounds, the different player designations, and the Illegal Participation rules. These are the rules. Why invent other rules because you think they should be there.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I don't understand you. Do you have a response to my post about the present tense or are you going to ignore it?

I'm not comfortable, or competent, to assume the role of English professor as may be necessary to explain a common sense, obvious situation, nor do I accept that you are either. I also don't accept your summary of "present tense" as it applies to this situation.

You have provided neither fact, logic or anything close to a reasonable explanation of why, how or whether your argument that a player can somehow retain the status on being inbounds by simply jumping up into the air after clearly being OOB.

If you (any of you) want to buy into this BS without satisfying the slightest shred of it making any sense WHATSOEVER, knock yourselves out that's entirely your choice. If you're comfortable accepting, "what the meaning of is, is" that's on you.

I'm certainly dissappointed that NFHS remains silent regarding this issue, as they could (should) take the time to clear it up. Thatis on them.

If, however, you personally can't figure out how to simply explain why a rule is correct, then do yourselves a favor and don't try and bark about why it should be followed anyway.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by jaybird

Simple, basic, easy to read English. Accept it and quit trying to insist on it conforming to your "logic".

Let's understand one point, I couldn't possibly care less what you determine or conclude is logic.

I'll quit trying to maintain my point, when you, or anyone else, can explain how, AFTER a player becomes OOB (by touching anything OOB) any rule suggests, hints or states he can return to not remaining OOB, by jumping up into the air while still outside the boundry lines?

[asdf]

You know, this is hilarious...

Our Official's Manual states................


Players who have practiced long hours deserve competent officials who have complete understanding of the letter, as well as the spirit and intent of the rules...."

It further goes on to state............

The basic requirement for all sports officials is courage."

If one can't look at this situation and understand the intent of the rule, and/or won't rule against what is written, they have not fulfilled either of the prior items we are charged with.

This situation is not covered in the book. Ruling this player inbounds goes against any shred of common sense in any circle of officiating.

Have the balls (courage) to rule against what is written.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by asdf

Have the balls (courage) to rule against what is written.

Excellent advice!

Are there any other written rules we should ignore?