Of course, with no way of knowing for sure, this would only be a guess, but perhaps the NFHS is just so amazed that that such an obstinant, and really silly, interpretation could emerge from the present language. Maybe they think that your interpretation is just so ridiculous, those wanting to adhere to it are just joking, and playing with them. Or they might think that a revision of the current language may not help anyone dumb enough to accept your interpretation.

I don't think there is any doubt that you clearly understand what I'm saying, and I've tried, several times, to suggest I simply cannot make any sense out of what you are suggesting is the way this rule should be interpreted. Perhaps I'm just not as smart as you and am unable to make any sense out of your interpretation.

Unless I'm missing something, the rule doesn't state, or suggest in the slightest, that once a player establishes himself as being OOB, he has to remain in contact with whatever it was that he touched (that made him OOB)to remain OOB.

As I've offered countless times, it's very clear, simple, logical and follows the concept of the game, that a player who has been inbounds, retains that status even though he may pass over a sideline or endline airborne, until he touches something, including the ground OOB, at which point he becomes OOB. That makes sense and is in line with the concept of the game.

Your argument, that after running around OOB, apparently indefinitely, a player can somehow regain his lost inbounds status by simply jumping up ito the air (while remaining outside the boundry lines) defies logical explanation.

You seem reluctant to even try and think this scenario through and appear willing to accept something you agree makes no sense, because someone conjured up this dopey interpretation. If you're comfortable with that, that's on you.

I would really appreciate you, or anyone, who buys into your interpretation explaining whatever logic you can muster up to make sense out of it. If it doesn't make any sense , at all, it can't be right.

Huh?
 

Huh?
Alf-
Are you so anal retentive that you can't see, on this entire thread, no one supports your opinion? Is it possible you could be wrong? Or, are you so far superior to the rest of us peons that you feel we can not determine very clear, simple, logical and follows the concept of the game, that you defy.
You are, Alf, a legend in your own mind.

I've been wrong many times, KWH, about many things, so accepting I'm wrong is no great novelty and has often served as a great way to learn. Before I accept being wrong, however, I have an expectation of being shown where I'm wrong and what is right, neither of which you have come anywhere close to providing.

You keep spouting off "that" I'm wrong, but you have yet to offer any explanation of why I'm wrong, or more importantly, why the interpretation you support is right, other than because someone told you so, and YOU have decided to accept an interpretation of the written rule, you can't explain makes absolutely no sense. ,

It's totally unimportant to me, whether you agree with my conclusion. You choose to ignore the logic and common sense of my perspective, and have yet to even try and refute what I've suggested. I'm not suggesting the rule is wrong, I am merely suggesting your particular interpretation makes no sense, regardless of where you've heard it, and if it cannot be explained logically, or in some way explained so it relates, in some way, to the concept of the game of football, it's not right and I'm not buying.

All you have to do to persuade me your interpretation is correct, is explain it to me so it makes sense. I realize it's a lot easier to talk about my being "anal" and nobody liking me and silly BS about being a legend, but until you can muster up enough detail to be persuasive, you're just blowing smoke up my butt. Let me know when you've got something a little more solid than smoke to offer. Nuff said.

Knowledge is good, only when it's good knowledge

Alf,
This is where Kevin gets the rule support to confirm his "interpretation". Whether it satisfies your "logic or common sense" is immaterial.

Simple explanation: If a player is airborne and not touching anything, he is NOT out of bounds.

You would need to discard any of your thought processes that involve your conceived convictions of what is logical and understand the rule as it is simply written. Accept what is written and the fact that your interpretation of what is logical and common sense may not be the accepted norm that everyone lives by.

There, you have the only "proof" that is needed. Either accept it or not, but remember that what KWH advocates has rule support!

Alf, word of advice, when it's you against the world - bet on the world.

KWH has provided written interpretations to back his position. You counter with what you 'think' the rule means. There's really no sense to belabor the point any longer.

Several people claim to have the only one and authorized answer, and that therefore all other opinions or views are wrong. However, the rule as written, does not give the answer and there is nothing else from the NFHS that would shed additional light on it. In other words, there is no "right" answer.

There is no need to rehash the different views, they're all buried in the post.

Point 1 - The rule does not tell us the status of this player.
Point 2 - There is no additional comment, interpretation, ruling published by the NFHS that discusses this play.

Until such time as the NFHS re-writes the rule or releases an interpretation, the puppy is open to several conflicting, but valid interpretations. I'm not claiming to have THE answer, I'm just saying no one else has the offical answer either.

I think we're mature enough to live with a little ambiguity.

Perhaps you are comfortable with, "discard(ing) any of your thought processes that involve your conceived convictions of what is logical", but my problem is NOT with the rule, my problem is with HOW some have elected to interpret it.

As for "rule support", I don't read where NF: 2-29-1 states, or even remotely suggests, that after a player renders himself OOB (by touching anything OOB) he has to maintain contact with what he touched to remain OOB, which is what your interpretation requires.

Under your interpretation, a player could take himself OOB, run the entire length of the football field OOB, then jump up into the air and legally bat a live, loose ball back onto the field from OOB, and you want to argue that is what the rule intends, despite being unable to refute that being illogical. Please don't waste my time with your, "rule support", what you suggest as "rule support" is a figment of your imagination.

If you can suggest some semblance of logic, or reason that such an intent has anything whatsoever to do with the rational flow of the game of football, I'd be really interested in hearing it. Otherwise all you're saying is that "someone" has conjured up a meaning, to the string of words used, that makes absolutely no sense, or has any rational relation to the game of football, and everyone else should simply hold their nose and buy into it, despite the fact it makes no sense.

You might consider, if you accept that the rules of the game, any of them, INTENTIONALLY MAKE NO SENSE, you undermine the credibility of the game.

In the absence of a an official interpretation, You get to choose which interpretation you believe applies, and so do I. Good luck with your selection, I'm just fine with mine.

Alf- Your sample play is legal.
 

Legal play!
When the airbourne PLAYER batted the football, such PLAYER, by NFHS definition, is not out of bounds as per: NFHS 2-29-1.
Therefore, by rule, this play is legal as the ball did not touch anything that is out of bounds as per NFHS 2-29-3.

Thanks for the great sample play. It sure gets us all thinking and remembering to:
READ RULE 2, READ RULE 2, READ RULE 2

You are having enough difficuly, KWH, with the words coming out of your mind, to try and put words in mine. As I suggested, IF YOU BUY INTO YOUR INTERPRETATION, that ridiculous sample play could actually appear to be legal. If however, you consider logic, common sense and a familiarity with the basic intent of the game of football, you may likely come to a completely opposite conclusion.

Reading and understanding Rule 2 is very important to comprehending the rules of the game and effectively enforcing them, as is being cautious not to add a lot of unwritten, superflous assumptions, that contradict the foundational basics of the game, such as that a player who has clearly established himself OOB, continues to be OOB as long as he remains OOB.

I don't know what a superflous interpretation is. ;)

Al, you continue to put forth an appeal to ridicule argument. Basically you are saying that your position is right because the other position is stupid (superfluous, contradict foundational basics, illogical, etc).

I am not sure I understand this.

Football is a game defined by the rules under which it is played - there is no "logic" to it, per se - only rules. There is logic in how we draw conclusions from the rules (for example, logic tells us that the ground cannot cause a fumble - there is no rule that says so, per se, but logic means that this is is the certain conclusion of the application of the rules).

The rules seem very clear in how they define a players status as OOB - I don't see any interpretation even needed. That "ridiculous" sample play is legal because that is how the rules are written. Whether it is "logical" that it be legal isn't really relevant, and I think it is a mis-use of the term "logic". Logic deals with rules and how you apply them to reach a conclusion. Logically, the play is legal. There is certainly no logical fallacy involved in concluding that the play is legal based on the rules given.

It is perfectly logical to conclude that a "ridiculous" play is legal, if in fact the rules support the play as being legal. I don't think anyones sense of outrage is really the point.

Now, you can argue that the play should not be legal, perhaps. And maybe that is the case - I don't really see what benefit a team could get from trying to exploit such a loophole though.

Where is that in the rules?

The rules state that a player is OOB as long as he is touching something OOB, right?

It doesn't say anything about him staying OOB when he isn't touching something OOB - why would you assume that there is a "foundational basic" of the game that isn't mentioned in the rulebook, when the rulebook specifically does mention the rather specific definition?

I think I must be missing something here - what is it?

I'm with Berkut!
And I would add there is Rules Book support for Berkut's ruling.

As for Alf, I can find no Rules Book support for:
"a player who has clearly established himself OOB, continues to be OOB as long as he remains OOB". and, absent of rules book support, Alf's interpretation is incorrect.


Officials are hired to officiate the Rules of the Game even if they personally do not agree with them.
For example, I personally do not think that a player who has established himself as an OOB player should be able to leap in the air and bat a football and the football remain live as the player is not, by definition OOB. However, since I am hired to officiate the game as written in the NFHS rules book, I do not have the luxury of relying on logic, common sense, familiarity with the basic intent of the game of football, superflous assumptions, foundational basics of the game, or magic 8-balls.
Rather, because I am hired to officiate the game based on NFHS rules, the play must be ruled as legal for there is nothing to specifically state that it is illegal.

How can I arrive at this conclusion? Simple!
The answer is found in the well written and often overlooked Rule 2-37 which is the definition of a Rule.

So, in conclusion, based on Rules 2-29-1, 2-29-3, and 2-37 the play is legal! And for clarification, football officials are not within their juristriction to tell a coach, "Thank you, here's how we going to rule on that today" and then explain your understanding of the rule to him, and how you will enforce it, as doing so would be a violation of the written rules, foolhardy, and a bit askew!

Read Rule 2, Read Rule 2, Read Rule 2

Nuff said

Well, I guess I've always considered that the rules of this game were intended to be logical and followed various patterns that make it understandable, somewhat predictable and striving towards logical objectives. I recognize, and appreciate, the fairly consistent difficulty in writing rules to avoid confusion or deliberately create circumstances that may inadvertently create unnecessary confusion.

The rule is question uses the word "touching" in a way that offers multiple possibilities. Interpretations can sometimes be stretched to varying degrees, which doesn't necessitate stretching interpretations to the most outlandish degree, which is where I would place the notion that by jumpimg up into the air (no longer touching) after satisfying the requirements to being OOB creates some momentary return to being inbounds.

I used the word ridiculous because I thought "stupid" would be unnecessarily harsh, but my vocabulary has limits. Rightly or wrongly, I have never considered football, or it's rules, rocket science, and I don't believe the intent of it's rule makers is to make any rule unecessarily complicated, vague or subject to irrational interpretation.

Football has two directional entities; in-bounds and OOB and appears to otherwise consider these two "places" separate and distinct from each other. I see no relevant purpose to support the notion that the otherwise bright line drawn between these two statuses would be intended to be blurred by such a unique interpretation. Therefore, until being persuaded there is some purpose or intent to supprt such an interpretation, I rely on logic and common sense to reject it.

You are obviously free to do as you so choose.

I don't think it is "outlandish" to say that the word "touching" requires one to actually be touching something to apply. I think that is, in fact, the actual definition of the word.

I would, with all respect, suggest that it is a considerably larger stretch to "interpret" 'touching' to mean 'touching or have touched in the past even if NOT touching now', since I don't think that is at all the definintion of the word in common usage.

Example: Right now I am touching my keyboard. If I remove my finger from the keybord, am I still touching it? I think not.

Absent some specific instruction from the rulebook or relevant interpretation from the rules committee, I don't see how we can presume that logic, reason, or common sense would suggest that we re-define a word to mean something almost exactly the opposite of what it actually means.

I would further suggest that if in fact the rules committee decides this is an important enough problem to warrant a "fix" (I cannot possibly imagine how it could be), they need to change the verbiage of the rule, since an interpretation that involves actually changing the definition of a commonly known word to mean almost the opposite of its actual meaning would be needlessly confusing.

I don't see why they could not, if they wished, simply adopt the basketball-type rule on this issue.

I think here is what's missing - There is no defenition of inbounds in the rule book.

This whole discussion revolves around a player who is out of bounds and who then jumps in the air. Unfortunately, there is no rule coverage to define his status.

Is he inbounds? Don't know. He could be based on a logic assumption that if he isn't out, then he must be in (the only two states the rules acknowlege).

Is he still out? Not sure - he's not touching anything so presumably he's not still out, although that would seem the most logical conclusion. Did the rules writers mean to be that restrictive when they wrote the rule or were they just trying to define when he should be considered to have gone out?

Is he in some in-between state? That seems the most unlikely. There is no rule support for the existance of a neither-in-nor-out state, and it seems unlikely the rules makers ever imagined such a state. If they did have such an odd state in mind, I would think they would have mentioned it. I think this status is the least likely possibility.

Anyway, because of the above, the play is open to individual interpretation. I've yet to see a reference to an NF rule or interpretation that clears it up. I know KWH strongly feels this is a legal play, and I'm fine with that. I'd call it "incomplete" because that's what I think is the proper call. I may well be wrong, but I don't think so.

I'm not saying anyone is wrong, except when they say their answer is the "correct or approved" rule. There isn't one that I've seen yet.

If we agree that there is no such thing as "not in but not out of bounds" (and I don't see how one can claim that there is any such thing), then the only choices there are are "out of bounds" and "in bounds".

The rule does in fact specifially state what makes someone out of bounds. If we accept that they must be out or in, then if the rule specifically states that they are our under specific circumstances, then barring those specific circumstances, reason would dictate that they are in bounds.

Now, perhaps this is an oversight in the rules that ought to be cleared up - but the rules as written, I think, are in fact very clear. The only way to argue that someone in air is NOT in bounds is to either

1. Argue that there exists some kind of alternate status to in and out of bounds, or
2. Argue that the rule which defines out of bounds has changed the meaning of the word "touching" to mean something rather different from what we understand it to mean.

If the rule writers meant to say that the player *remains* out of bounds until he touches something in bounds, then they should have said so - imagining that they meant to say so when they did not is taking us outside the realm of the rules, and into the realm of what we think the rules ought to be - a different discussion entirely.

I wonder what the NCAA and NFL rulebooks say about this?

Personally, I agree that this is a rather silly idea - that someone can go out of bounds and then legally touch a ball. I don't really think it will ever come up though.

You could deal with this specific play by defining IP to include touching the ball after going OOB as well.

Berkut, I agree with your comments but then here is the rub. If the player who is no longer out-of-bounds is in-bounds because he jumped:

a) he is guilty of IP (even if he doesn't touch the ball) because he has returned inbounds after having gone out.

b) any sub on the sideline would be guilty of IP if he jumped in the air while cheering on a great play.

Because of that, I've ruled out in-bounds as a choice and I already ruled out the "neither-in-nor-out" state so I'm sticking with out of bounds as the best call.

No, they wouldn't be guilty of IP because they are non-players and they did not participate in the play. This is not the same as a player leaving and entering the field again during a play.

This, along with both the Redding Guide currently ruling this way and the NFHS casebook having done so at one time (with no published change), I am comfortable in going with the majority on this play.

That makes the most sense to me. To argue that the present tense verb "touching" also includes the past tense does not make much sense to me at all.

Alf-
You post above has two incorrect statements:

1) You wrote: "The rule is question uses the word "touching"..."
The actual wording in the rule in question is: ...is touching...

2) You wrote: "Football has two directional entities; in-bounds and OOB and appears to otherwise consider these two "places" separate and distinct from each other".
In actuality, NFHS Football does not have a definition of IN BOUNDS which I believe IS likely the reasoning for your confusion.

So, and while you may continue to find it to be stupid, because there is no definition of inbounds, and since we only have a definition of out of bounds again then, by definition a player can either be "out of bounds" or "not out of bounds".

KWH, I know you're not suggesting the "rule in question" doesn't use the word touching, because "touching seems like a part of the phrase "is touching", so where you were going with that escapes me.

If you want to build your argument along some abstract concept that there is no such thing as being in-bounds, that's entirely up to you, but forgive me if I don't find your effort at persuasion, compelling. I don't think some exercise in metaphysicics is intended as part of the construction of football rules. If something really doesn't make sense, or apply in any conceivable way to the game of football, it very likely is not an appropriate foundation on which to build a simple rule interpretation.

The tortured logic and attempts at convoluted "wordsmithing" is impressive, but not persuasive. The extent to which you are trying to twist any sense of logic out of this discussion underscores how silly your basic premis really is. Again, if you're comfortable accepting something you are incapable of explaining rationally, that is entirely your choice, but it's also entirely on you.

I think some of you are venturing way out beyond the reach of your headlights.

Alf-
In NFHS Football there is no such thing as an inbounds player. Unless of course you are referring to a player who is standing inside the hashmarks! :confused:
Perhaps you should read Rule 1-2-3e

9 pages and nobody has changed anyone else's opinion on this. My "vote" goes with the Reddings interpretation.

I agree.

I think this is a good point. It gets to what I was trying to ask about in my fumble question. (I realize I"m new here, but someone please answer this!;))

A22 fumbles forward near sideline. B55, who had overpursued and is now standing on the ground OOB, bats ball backwards, in bounds, to a defensive teammate. We have a whistle when B55 touches it, and it's A's ball at spot of fumble.

Now, same thing, but B55 jumps in the air when he bats the ball. What do we have?

I agree that by the NCAA rules, we have a legal play.

But I think it is worth asking the question: SHOULD this be legal? Does it represent a potential loophole?

Berkut, I agree that even if it is a loophole, it's not like teams will be able to start exploiting it left and right.

However, imagine this. Granted, I'm exaggerating a little but honestly, it's not as far-fetched as it may at first seem:

Team A throws a quick out. B22 steps in front of the receiver. The ball richochets high off B22's shoulder pads. The ball is clearly going to land a good 10 yards out of bounds. A80 runs out of bounds. He's kicking over yard markers, bumping into photographers, even pats a cheerleader on the a**...all the while walking on the ground OOB. He then settles under the ball, and when it gets close, he jumps up and bats it with two hands to A88, who's standing in bounds near the sideline. A88 catches it and runs untouched for a TD.

OK, I know that's a little silly, but assuming this is legal (and I believe it is), what do people think about it?

Maybe the answer is: hell yeah, it should be legal. Airborne is airborne. If you can take 5 steps out of bounds are are athletic enough to jump up and bat (or catch and throw) the ball backwards while you're still in the air, more power to you.

But IF the answer is: Actually, we never wanted to have players running out of bounds, chasing down overthrows and ricochets like they're trying to make a volleyball save, then maybe the rule needs to be clarified?

Often, a totally outrageous example seems necessary to demonstrate a perfectly logical point. Your example, chymechowder, as outlandish as it seems, serves well to identify the extreme measures the Redding's interpretation could support.

This discussion should not be about which interpretation is more popular, rather the focus should be on which interpretation best supports the intent of the rule, which in and of itself is designed to clarify how the game is played.

Somehow, for well over 100 years, this game has survived without a specfic definition of "an inbounds player". That could be because nobody noticed, or more likely that everybody understands what that means. I can't say specifically, how long the current language of NF: 2-29-1 has been in place, but it seems this issues has only surfaced fairly recently.

Again, that raises a question is it because nobody noticed it, or just that nobody bothered to twist the language used far enough to create this Redding's interpretation? Granted the verbiage is clearly not the best choice of words, and that NFHS could eliminate the problem by either revising the language, or explaining their reasonings to support the Redding's interpretation.

Until either of those things happens, we are all responsible to interpret the rules as best we can, official interpretation aside which is the case with this particular issue.

A basic part of our job description is to be able to explain our rulings should they be appropriately disputed. Being totally unable to rationally explain any logic, purpose or practical application associated with the Redding's interpretation, I can only conclude the Redding's interpretation is incorrect.

If anyone, anywhere would be kind enough to explain any logic, any perceived purpose or practical application of this interpretation, I would be thankful and eager to consider it further. Until then, I'm going with what makes the most sense to me and my understanding of this game. That's a decision everyone has to make, and like all the other decisions we routinely make, accept whatever consequences result.

And what do you do when you decide to rule as you see fit on one side of the field and then the exact same play happens on the other side but the official over there goes with the wording and interpretations that have been published? I guess as all hell breaks loose, at least you will have the comfort of knowing you are willing to accept those consequences.

I don't agree with this. Even if a rule "doesn't make sense" I don't believe we're supposed to interpret it in such a way until it conforms with our logic--even if everyone on the field agrees what the "logical" ruling should be.

Specifically, using my ricochet play, I'd tell the coach that it's technically legal.* I might even go so far as to sympathize with him when he insists, with vehemence, rage, and a fair amount of spittle, that it SHOULDN'T be legal.

But until the rules are changed, it should be ruled legal, regardless of how illogical it may seem.

*this is assuming the ricochet play is in fact, legal. If I'm missing something about the player running out of bounds before batting it back in, someone please point it out. thanks!

Mike L, I can't speak for wherever it is that you work, but where I work, we're fortunate that we tend to be on the same page about decisions, and when there might be some difference in judgment, that we haven't already previously adjusted to, we discuss it until there is consensus.

Most often when there is a serious disagreement, after deciding amongst the crew, how it will be enforced, during the game we'll expand the discussion at our next meeting until we reach a consensus how the issue will be enforced in the future, by the group.

chymechowder, what's so wonderful about this country, is you don't have to agree, unless you choose to. You are totally free to make your own determination and decide what you believe to be correct. Fortunately, however, you don't get to decide "what should be ruled legal" for anyone but yourself, although you are fully entitled to your opinion, as am I.

I'm just not convinced that any rule establishes your interpretation as being correct, and until I can be convinced, I've decided to go with what I believe to be right, to have been intended and to be in the best interests of the game. That has no bearing on what you decide, although I'd suggest you give it some serious thought.

Same here. I think this thread has run its course.

I also disagree with Alf
 

MikeL brings up an excellant point. Lets take another look at Alf's philosophy of: ...I'm going with what makes the most sense to me and my understanding of this game. That's a decision everyone has to make, and like all the other decisions we routinely make, accept whatever consequences result...
If we were to utilize this Alf-Logic and make up your own interpretation and accept the consequensces on say for example the new Restricted Area / Coaches Box enforcment, I see the results as a bona-fide cluster-flop!

I believe attempting our very best to enforce the rules the same on both sides of the field and the same from week to week on different fields makes more sense, as, if we strived for continuity, it just might cut down on the coaches abilty to say, "It was illegal last week!" Speaking of that, I believe I am beginning to see why coaches make those statments. Must be really great to work a game for a team that last weeks crew included Alf!:eek:

Where I work, any issue regarding how we call things would be decided before the season starts. Realistically however, something this odd is probably not going to come up. So it's going to be ruled on the fly when it happens. In any event, despite what appears here to be a majority against your position, you seem completely unwilling to accept said consensus which is wholly supported by your quote "Until then, I'm going with what makes the most sense to me and my understanding of this game. That's a decision everyone has to make, and like all the other decisions we routinely make, accept whatever consequences result." Perhaps you are more willing to bend to the will of the majority at your game.

I vote for Rogers Redding
 

My vote goes with the Redding interpretation also.

Anybody know how to set up one of thoses voting polls on this site?

This discussion has not been about adjusting, altering or ignoring a rule; it's been about deciding on how to best handle an odd play that really isn't covered in the book. If the rule book gave the answer, we would have saved 132 or more posts.

Without an answer from the book, we have to figure out the best ruling we can. Since this play isn't ever going to come up in a career, let alone more than once in a season or in a game, consistency among officials isn't really much of a worry.

I've studied the rules and read the different arguments, and I have my solution and I'm comfortable with it. To me it's logical, makes sense and seems fair, and as a bonus, probably would be the easiest sell of the options.

I understand a number of other officials prefer a different ruling, and I'm fine with that. Their arguments make sense too. I'm just trying to emphasize that those who disagree with the majority are not necessarily in the wrong and are not guilty of ignoring the rules. We just interpret the rule differently.

I agree that, as the definition of OOB is written, this interpretation is correct, even though it does seem strange.

Do you likewise agree, then, that there is seemingly no restriction to how many steps a player can take out of bounds before he jumps and bats/throws the ball back?

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."

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

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

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.

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.

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."

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.

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... ;)

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.

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.

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?

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.

Excellent advice! :rolleyes:

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.

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.

Thanks for making my point. ;)

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.

From the Rules Book
 

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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.

NFHS Rule Book
Page 32
Rule 2-29-1

"is touching"

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.

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

OK, I'll take a shot at a rational reason:

Let's say a loose ball hits the ground in bounds and bounces in the air over the sideline. Let's also say there's a scrum of players in the area....Presumably, you have no problem with an inbounds linebacker going airborne directly above the sideline and batting it back to a teammate, right?

What you seem to not be OK with is: the same linebacker standing 3 yards OOB, jumping back towards the field of play, and while in the air above the sideline, batting it back to a teammate.

Well maybe the rulemakers realized that the official on the sideline can't possibly keep track of every player--offense and defense--who puts a toe out of bounds during the play.

So instead, all I have to look for is one thing: is the player who's batting that loose ball touching OOB ground while doing it? If yes, dead ball OOB. If no--if he's airborne--then play on. And I don't care where he came from or which direction he's jumping.

(Granted, we do need to look for certain players going out of bounds on their own. But those times are specific situations that are easily spotted/tracked; and they prevent a team from obtaining a CLEAR unfair advantage.)

Anyway, there's my attempt at bridging the gap. Does that persuade you at all?:)

On a side note, I am not going to be throwing any flags for horse collar fouls. I do not believe this should be illegal because it is a dopey rule so I will not call it. That's my interpretation.

Based on the thought process you've displayed regarding OOB touching, it seems pretty consistent for you.

Ironically enough, I used your justifications for it too. Glad to hear I have your blessing then because those damn rules are too cumbersome to have to memorize anyways.

I agree with KWH, don't let the rules get in the way of a good football game. OK I'm done for good on this thread. Have fun trolling the rest of the forum.

I just wanted to be comment #200!