Reddings guide illegal participation

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Excellent advice!

Are there any other written rules we should ignore?

It's not written rules anybody is suggesting be ignored, but ridiculous interpretations that defy explanation, logic or purpose are another story. All you need do to persuade everyone to adopt your interpretation is explain it logically or show where it makes ANY sense.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

A simple "I don't understand how tense works in the English language." would've sufficed.

It's not a complicated subject, requiring a college degree to understand. They do teach this in grade school afterall.

Your "common sense" is absurd and trying to have a discussion with you is a waste of time. You are completely incapable of admitting when you're wrong.

You are not interested in discussion, you're interested in dictating.

[mikesears]

[asdf]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Excellent advice!

Are there any other written rules we should ignore?

Thanks for making my point.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Welpe

A simple "I don't understand how tense works in the English language." would've sufficed.

It's not a complicated subject, requiring a college degree to understand. They do teach this in grade school afterall.

Your "common sense" is absurd and trying to have a discussion with you is a waste of time. You are completely incapable of admitting when you're wrong.

You are not interested in discussion, you're interested in dictating.

There is a lot my degree didn't cover, and I often drifted off into day dreams during grade school, which is why I so often rely on gifted "smart" people, like you welpe, to guide me to the light.

Instead of wasting all your effort trying to insult me, why not devote just a little of your superior intelligence to simply explaining why a dolt like me should understand and accept the (choose as many as you like) logic, common sense or any practical purpose related to the game of football for your interpretation.

Surely, someone as intelligent as you could easily persuade a dolt like me that there is some (any) rational basis for your interpretation. You've had a lot of opportunities to do so, thus far, but just haven't seemed able, or willing, to do so. You don't want to leave any impression that you might be the kind of official who doesn't think through his decisions and just does what he's told, even when he can't make any sense out of what he's been told.

[KWH]

Alf-

In response to your request of: ..."Surely, someone as intelligent as you could easily persuade a dolt like me that there is some (any) rational basis for your interpretation"...

That being said the game we officiate has rules. Whether or not you agree with these rules is insignifigant. You should learn to rely on and enforce these as they are written!

For an example, here is rule 2-37 for you to begin with:

SECTION 37 - RULE
A rule is one of the groups of regulations which governs the game. A rule sometimes states what a player may do, but if there is no such statement for a given act (such as faking a kick), it is assumed that he may do what is not prohibited. In like manner, a rule sometimes states or implies that the ball is dead or that a foul is involved. If it does not, it is assumed that the ball is live and that no foul occurred. If a foul is mentioned, it is assumed that it is not part of a double or multiple foul unless so stated or implied.

[asdf]

Since we're quoting NFHS publications.....


From the NFHS Officials Manual

Basic Philosophy and Principles

PREREQUISITES FOR GOOD OFFICIATING

"Officials must have a football sense whIch SUPERSEDES the techincal application of the rules so that the game goes smoothly"


The technical application of this rule (interpretation) in the way you suggest, will ensure that your game ceases to run smoothly.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by KWH

That being said the game we officiate has rules. Whether or not you agree with these rules is insignifigant. You should learn to rely on and enforce these as they are written!

Let me quote you another "rule"; "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear", and your interpretation is just plain dopey, and makes no sense. The fact that you don't even attempt to explain your interpretation underscores how utterly feeble your position is.

I don't have a problem with, "the way (NF: 2.29.1) is written", my problem is with the way you have decided to interpret it. Don't waste your time, or mine, repeating who else might agree with your interpretation. If none of you can explain it, make any sense out of it or even suggest how your interpretation makes a shred of logic as related to how the game is intended to be played, you're spinning your wheels in deep sand.

I've learned a long time ago, when something absolutely can't be explained rationally, it just can't be right, no matter who tells you so, or how loud they tell you. I'm comfortable defending my position, and when asked to explain it, have no trouble making sense of it. Can you?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Let me quote you another "rule"; [B]"You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear", [/B

Let me quote you one, "You can't teach a pig to sing."

KWH, I think it's a waste of time to try and reason with the Alf. No "interpretation" (the English language to the rest of us), will be good enough.

If you think these are insults...they aren't. They are simply statements of fact.

[bisonlj]

ajmc...why do these guys keep calling you Alf?

The reason this ball is not incomplete is because the receiver is not out of bounds by rule. He's also not in bounds but that's irrelevant. He can't legally catch the ball because if comes down in bounds, he's guilty of illegal participation. If he comes down out of bounds, it's an incomplete pass. Just because someone is not out of bounds doesn't mean he has to be in bounds.

This really isn't that hard and I don't know why you continue to argue an interpretation that almost every other official agrees with. I've discussed this exact play at several rules meetings and clinics and the interpretation is always the same. This player can legally bat the ball but there is no way he can legally catch it.

[jaybird]

ajmc...why do these guys keep calling you Alf?

Both are aliens!

[ref1986]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Knock yourself out Jaybird. If you're comfortable with that response, and can get away with it, that may be all you will ever need. It's when the questioner responds, "but we both saw him step on/over the side line before he touched the ball", that your explanation may get interesting, but I'm sure you'll be prepared to handle it with equal brevity.

Good luck.

"Yoy are correct, Coach, his feet were out of bounds. But as soon as he left his feet, by rule he was no longer out of bounds." End of discussion.

Kind of like:

"How can you call that a completed pass? He never got a foot down."

"Coach, your player pushed him out of bounds while he was in the air inside the sideline. By rule, that's a completed pass." End of discussion.

Jaybird and I aren't giving rules clinics on the field.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Welpe

KWH, I think it's a waste of time to try and reason with the Alf. No "interpretation" (the English language to the rest of us), will be good enough..

The problem, Welpe, is you haven't tried, or been able to, "reason" anything. It's not that "no interpretation will be good enood enough", as much as it's been no rational explanation of your interpretation has been offered. Not a single effort has been made, by any of the proponents of this ridiculous interpretation, to justify it's purpose or application to the game of football.

I can't state, for sure, when the current verbiage of 2-29-1 was written, but I suspect it was decades before this dopey interpretation surfaced several years ago, out of the blue. I don't recall this nonsense ever being discussed or even considered before this unique "interpretation" suddenly appeared.

The problem is not with the rule, it's with the way you choose to interpret it, and what you choose to read into it. This is a rule that applies to a game it's not intended to be a language test or great mystery and it makes absolutely no sense, or suits any purpose that applies to the game of football.

You do what you want to do, but until someone can attach some sense of purpose, logic, common sense or some rational relation to the game of football, I'm not buying your interpretation of what this rule, as it's currently written, means.

ref1986: Perhaps you could reference where in the rules it states, "But as soon as he left his feet, by rule he was no longer out of bounds." [/I][/B]. In the meantime, you shouldn't worry about being bogged down to conduct clinics anywhere.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by ajmc

ref1986: Perhaps you could reference where in the rules it states, "But as soon as he left his feet, by rule he was no longer out of bounds." [/i][/b]. In the meantime, you shouldn't worry about being bogged down to conduct clinics anywhere.

NFHS Rule Book
Page 32
Rule 2-29-1

"is touching"

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by ajmc

ref1986: Perhaps you could reference where in the rules it states, "But as soon as he left his feet, by rule he was no longer out of bounds." [/I][/B]. In the meantime, you shouldn't worry about being bogged down to conduct clinics anywhere.

Uggh!! I can't believe I'm being drug into this junk! I know this will be taken as offensive and I apologize for that but I can't believe what I'm reading from Alf (still don't know why people call him that!). I was told a long time ago to never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. Alf, you probably aren't an idiot but you are not grasping what people on this board have told you over and over.

Here is the rule verbatim:
Rule 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.

That very clearly states that a player who is no longer touching the sideline is no longer out of bounds.