I really appreciate your reluctance to call me an idiot, but I believe I grasp that same thing, that people keep repeating, fairly well. I think it's the fact I don't buy what I'm told to accept, is what is having a problem being grasped. If you could explain it, rationally, I am absolutely willing to reconsider and based on the strength of the explanation might well be persuaded. Sorry, but use of the phrase "is touching" does not trump the absolute absense of common sense and ridiculous result your interpretation requires.

Forgive me but, NF: 2-29-1 DOES NOT STATE anything remotely like, "a player who is no longer touching the sideline is no longer out of bounds", that is an interpretation YOU are adding to what YOU HAVE CHOSEN to believe the rule suggests.

I'll apologize in advance and hope you won't take any offense at my suggesting that anyone who blindly agrees to enforce an interpretation that they are unable to rationally defend, explain or apply any logic or functional purpose related to the game of football to, seems somewhat ill equipped to render dependable judgments.

It's been done...over 13 pages now but not one of them has been good enough for you. Furthermore, you haven't offered any actual rebuttal but have simply dismissed them as being "dopey", "ridiculous" and not grounded in "common sense". Numerous people have offered black letter rules, interpretations from various sources and examples but you keep going back to "common sense". I think the burden of proof is upon you to provide some sort of concrete evidence to support your interpretation. General concepts of "common sense" are not good enough.

Why are you so reluctant to accept a very plain English phrase for its face value? Do you absolutely agree with every other rule in the book? If you don't agree with that this should be the rule, that's understandable, but explain to me how "is touching" can be read any other way than in the present tense?

One last trip down the rabbit hole...

For your reading enjoyment:

2-37 Rule:

A rule is one of the groups of regulations which govern 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 has 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.

2-29 Out of Bounds:

Art 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.

Art 3: A loose ball is out of bounds when it touches anything, including a player or game official that is out of bounds.


2-29-1 and 2-29-3 are exclusive in nature. The rules are specific as to when a player is out of bounds and when a loose ball is out of bounds. Since an airborne player is not touching anything out of bounds, these rules do not apply when an airborne touches a loose ball. There are no other rules to cover this situation, which means, by rule, we HAVE to assume the ball is live.

The prosecution rests. God Bless America with liberty and justice for all.

And notice that the tense of the verb "touch" is different for each situation.
"Is touching" is present tense. Present, meaning "currently". "Touched" means "has touched" is past tense, meaning at some point, the ball did touch out of bounds. While the NF has messed up a few items with improper language, I don't think this is one of them.

Never let the rule book get in the way of a good football game!
 

So Alf (aka, AJMC), and his special alter-ego cousin Adolf (aka, ASDF) are working a huge saturday morning Pop Warner 3rd/4th grade tilt, score is tied at 0-0 with :30 remaining in the contest when the play in the original post of this thread occurs. Alf and Adolf let the play run its course and then prior to the extra point they put there heads together to share their respective gray matter. They both approach the coach of the scoring team, Alf tells the coach "we have an incomplete pass" while Adolf says "we have illegal partcipation". The coach says, "but wait, those are two distinctly different rulings, what rules are you basing these on on?" Both Alf and Adolf respond in unision "We use common sense and logic!" The coach says, "Well I have a rule book, an article in Referee Magazine, a case play in the Redding Study Guide, and we ran they play by our NFHS State Rules interpreter all of whom say the play is legal"! Alf responds with; "Well thats their interpretation!" Then Adolf adds, "But coach what you don't realize is, Officials must have a football sense whIch SUPERSEDES the techincal application of the rules so that the game goes smoothly, and the technical application of this rule (interpretation) in the way you suggest, will ensure that your game ceases to run smoothly. The coach responds with, "Huh"? Alf, wanting to hurry the game along adds, "You see coach we have to use common sense and logic!" The coach looks Adolf right in the eye and says, "It sound to me like you two just make sh*t up as you go along!" To which Alf replys, "Well thats your interpretation;, let me give you another interpretation coach, You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear", and your interpretation is just plain dopey, and makes no sense. As long as we are dressed up in these uniforms we must be prepared to rationally defend, explain or apply any logic or functional purpose related to the game of football to, and we must remain somewhat ill equipped to render dependable judgments"!
The coach takes a step back and says, "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?" Alf looks to Adolf, then back at the coach and says, "Huh"? :cool:

After the game is over the coach approaches both Alf and Adlof and hands them a rule open to this (applicable) rule:
RULE 2 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.

Well played, sir.

Let me do this like a prosecutor in court.

Prosecutor: Do you agree the rule says (and I'm paraprhasing a little here with no change in intent), "A player...is out of bounds when any part of the person is touching anything...that is on or outside the sideline or end line."
ajmc: Yes
Prosecutor: Do you agree that "is touching" means the player is currently touching not previously touched or will be touching in the future?
ajmc: Yes
Prosecutor: In the play in question, is the player currently touching anything that is on or outside the sideline or end line?
ajmc: No
Prosecutor: So if the player is not touching anything that is on or outside the sideline or end line, are they, by definition, currently out of bounds?

Your answer to this question will either show you understand the rule or you don't understand the rule.

Even simpler:
Touching = out of bounds
Not touching = not out of bounds

I agree it seems somewhat illogical that the player could step out of bounds, leap into the air, legally touch the ball (bat it into the field of play), and come down out of bounds without committing a foul or otherwise make the ball dead. But that is clearly the way the rule is written and one that isn't that hard to enforce.

Here's another example I heard a few years ago that helped me to understand the rule. Let's say K has a scrimmage kick from the K40 and gunner K10 runs out of bounds on his way to cover the kick. Rather than returning in bounds, he runs all the way down the sideline and touches the ball (while still standing out of bounds) at the R10. The ball is dead as soon as K touches it since he's out of bounds. But he did not illegally participate in the play because he never returned to the field. That also seems illogical but that is the way the rule is written.

Out of curiosity, do you ever get into arguments with the other members of your high school varsity crew about rules questions? What position do you work on your crew? Why do the other people on here call you Alf?

Allow me to ask a question then. I certainly understand the arguement that A is not out of bounds.

My question is - what is A's status? I can come up with 4 possible answers. A is :
1) Inbonds
2) Don't know
3) A third state not mentioned in the rule book (neither in nor out or both in and out)
4) Out of bounds

The rule book discusses only players being in bound or players being out of bounds so my assumption would be if he isn't out, he must be in; but that's just my assumption.

I know no one is going to change his mind on this and I think we've had enough rule citations already, I'm just curious about what you see his status as.

Jim D-

You continue to answer the question with a question. Unfortunatly however,
you failed to list the correct answer in your multiple choice question as his status is not out of bounds.

Therefore, the play is legal as he did not violate any of these rules:
2-29-1, 2-37, 9-6-1, 9-6-2 and 9-6-3

Have a great day!!!

I didn't say he violated any rules, I was just wondering what his status is.

It sounds like you picked door number 3 - A third state not mentioned in the rule book (in this case "Not out of bounds").

That's all I was asking.

Have a good weekend. Srimmages start around he tomorrow.

My point is our charter is to determine if the play is legal.
And, since the player involved was "not out of bounds by rule",
the play has to be legal.

Determining the status of the player is NOT required for officials to make a ruling, and, is therefore, irrelvant.
We only have to determine if any rules were broken and, as much as EVERYBODY on this thread wants this play to be illegal, for now, it remains legal!

Enjoy your scrimmages.

Gentlemen, who are you trying to convince. me or youselves? I have long suggested that each of you should do as you see fit, and if you are comfortable not being able to rationally explain why your interpretation, about anything, defies common sense and logic, THAT'S ON YOU.

I'm perfectly comfortable explaining my interpretation and standing behind it.

You can make up all the silly imaginary responses you like, imitating prosecutors ( you don't seem cut out for that), even playing the role of English teachers and the only impressions you are making are with yourselves.

All any one of you, or all of you together if you feel safer, have to do to persuade me is present a reasonable, rational argument, suggest some reason why your interpretation makes any sense related to the game or relate some logic to your interpretation. Thus far none of you have come anywhere close to being competent to do that, any of that.

When one of you matures enough to try and put forth a cogent, rational explantion of your position, without trying to be a smart a$$, do feel free to get back to me. However, until you can muster up that ability, or some level of competence, do yourselves a favor and don't waste your time, or mine, with the same old repackaged nonsense. It doesn't float (because it won't float).

I can understand your ambivalence and frustration in trying to convince yourselves that buying into such a contradictory notion, without any sense of understanding or explanation makes sense, but your inability to mount any type of persuasive argument supporting your position, should give you all the pause you need to try and think your position through.

There is a beast in logic called a "false dilemma." Here's the general example:

It is either A or B. It is not A, therefore it must be B. To rephrase:

A player is either out of bounds or inbounds. He is not out of bounds, therefore he is inbounds.

However, there is a third possibility: in the air. A player in the air is simply that, he's in the air. At that moment he is neither inbounds nor out of bounds. Where he lands will determine which he is. (Consider a player leaving his feet inbounds, catching a pass, and landing out of bounds.) The NF could have written the rules so that a player's last status is also his current status if he is in the air: a player who leaves his feet while out of bounds is considered out of bounds until he touches inbounds, and vice versa. They chose not to do so.

Gentlemen, who are you trying to convince. me or youselves? I have long suggested that each of you should do as you see fit, and if you are comfortable not being able to rationally explain why your interpretation, about anything, defies common sense and logic, THAT'S ON YOU.

I'm perfectly comfortable explaining my interpretation and standing behind it.

You can make up all the silly imaginary responses you like, imitating prosecutors ( you don't seem cut out for that), even playing the role of English teachers and the only impressions you are making are with yourselves.

All any one of you, or all of you together if you feel safer, have to do to persuade me is present a reasonable, rational argument, suggest some reason why your interpretation makes any sense related to the game or relate some logic to your interpretation. Thus far none of you have come anywhere close to being competent to do that, any of that.

When one of you matures enough to try and put forth a cogent, rational explantion of your position, without trying to be a smart a$$, do feel free to get back to me. However, until you can muster up that ability, or some level of competence, do yourselves a favor and don't waste your time, or mine, with the same old repackaged nonsense. It doesn't float (because it won't float).

I can understand your ambivalence and frustration in trying to convince yourselves that buying into such a contradictory notion, without any sense of understanding or explanation makes sense, but your inability to mount any type of persuasive argument supporting your position, should give you all the pause you need to try and think your position through.

You really aren't interested in an opposing view point then. Fair enough, I will quit wasting my time. I think perhaps, you just do not want to admit you are wrong.

You leave me no choice but this is in my final rebuttal, which is about as inane as every one of your posts, perhaps less so:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WNrx2jq184