Reddings guide illegal participation

[Jim D.]

One point in this discussion I think needs clarification -

If A 1 is running down the sideline and steps out of bounds and then catches the ball or bats it away from inbounds B1, that touching is not IP. See 9.6.3 - A1 is not a "replaced player, substitute, etc. He retains his status as a player (2-32-1). He can catch or bat the ball (both actions would cause the ball to become dead) but are legal moves. His "interference" in the play is not illegal participation. The only way A1 can be guilty of IP is if he returns inbounds.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Al, you conveniently ignored rule 2-4, the definition of a catch, which states that a catch is completed when player gains possession of the ball and first touches inbounds. Nowhere does it say that the player must have first established his position inbounds.

What is it with you guys? Why all the focus on what rules DON'T SAY?

Why must it be necessary for any rule to specifically mention something that is painfully obvious should never happen? The rules don't prohibit snipers shooting balls out of the air, but it's not likely any competent official would be confused about what to do if that happened.

Are you suggesting the rules actually need to specify that someone is prohibited from leaping on to the field from OOB, so we know that wouldn't be "a catch"? The proper application of ANY rule is dependent on the common sense and judgment of the person given the authority to enforce it.

Both you and Kdf5 are trying hard to make a silk purse out of a sows ear, and it just can't be done. Your basic premise, is fatally flawed, because it makes no sense, serves no purpose. You can try and twist it, turn it, quote 65 other rules to try and mask it, paint it, dress it up or cover it up with perfume and it still just won't make any sense nor have any purpose. You're just wrong, accept that and move on.

Football rules are not designed, or intended, to have secret or hidden meanings, although sometimes they inadvertently create some. Do yourselves a favor and stop wasting your time and effort seeking obscure loopholes and hidden landmines. No rules code will ever cover every possibility, that's why common sense and logic in applying them is so important.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by ajmc

What is it with you guys? Why all the focus on what rules DON'T SAY?

Why must it be necessary for any rule to specifically mention something that is painfully obvious should never happen? The rules don't prohibit snipers shooting balls out of the air, but it's not likely any competent official would be confused about what to do if that happened.

Are you suggesting the rules actually need to specify that someone is prohibited from leaping on to the field from OOB, so we know that wouldn't be "a catch"? The proper application of ANY rule is dependent on the common sense and judgment of the person given the authority to enforce it.

Both you and Kdf5 are trying hard to make a silk purse out of a sows ear, and it just can't be done. Your basic premise, is fatally flawed, because it makes no sense, serves no purpose. You can try and twist it, turn it, quote 65 other rules to try and mask it, paint it, dress it up or cover it up with perfume and it still just won't make any sense nor have any purpose. You're just wrong, accept that and move on.

Football rules are not designed, or intended, to have secret or hidden meanings, although sometimes they inadvertently create some. Do yourselves a favor and stop wasting your time and effort seeking obscure loopholes and hidden landmines. No rules code will ever cover every possibility, that's why common sense and logic in applying them is so important.

So I guess that's a no on your rule references.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by ajmc

What is it with you guys? Why all the focus on what rules DON'T SAY?

Because it's not my job to invent rules to my liking. If the rules don't specifically prohibit something it's legal.

For reference you might want to check the discussions about a certain offensive scheme. A lot of people didn't like it for various reasons but conceded that it was legal under the current rules.

btw - the sniper scenario is just plain lunacy.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by kfo9494

To me you are making a mound out of a mole hill. So the reciever leaps, big deal, what if he had not leaped?
I assume you are trying to say that the reciever leaping stopped B from a int. Well if the same play had happened and the reciever did not leap then it still stopped B from an INT.
I am not saying you are incorrect, I am just saying there are ways to stop the INT without the leap. IMO-(not supported by rule) this is confusing.

I'm not making a mountain out of anything. And I find there is an unfortunate feeling that anytime someone takes an opposite position to someone's post that it's either accusatory or insulting. I'm just trying to get someone to justify their answers by the rules for what they've posted and doing it by giving other examples of how the same "ruling" applies to a possible variety of situations. So far, all we've received is what some "think" is logical, but no real rule reference to justify the position. I've said before that if I have to rule on this situation in a "game management" manner, I'd probably just go with an incomplete. But we are in a rules debate here, and "feelings" that are contrary to what is clearly stated in the rule book don't amount to much.
For example, it appears the majority (which in fact may include myself in "real life") thinks it should be called incomplete. But consider the possibility of an A who is blocked out of bounds. He is allowed to immediately return and suffer no penalty. But say his return is done by leaping from OOB to in bounds to catch the ball and then land in bounds. Do you have an incomplete pass because he was OOB by the stated reasoning and never re-established himself in bounds until after the catch? Because it seems some are trying to say here he is OOB and therefor as soon as he touches it the ball is dead. Or does his OOB status change depending on where he lands? Where in the rules does it state his status changes (other than the possibility of an IP) between intentionally going OOB and being blocked OOB?

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by Mike L

But consider the possibility of an A who is blocked out of bounds. He is allowed to immediately return and suffer no penalty. But say his return is done by leaping from OOB to in bounds to catch the ball and then land in bounds.

Do you have an incomplete pass because he was OOB by the stated reasoning and never re-established himself in bounds until after the catch? Because it seems some are trying to say here he is OOB and therefor as soon as he touches it the ball is dead.

Or does his OOB status change depending on where he lands? Where in the rules does it state his status changes (other than the possibility of an IP) between intentionally going OOB and being blocked OOB?

1) A1 goes out unforced by B and grabs the pass and:
a) returns first touching out of bounds:
Ruling -
i) Ball is dead
ii) No penalty

b) returns to ground in bounds
Ruling -
i) Ball remains alive
ii) Penalty for IP (for returning inbounds)

2) A1 is forced out of bounds by B and grabs the pass and:
a) returns to ground out of bounds
Ruling -
i) Ball is dead
ii) No penalty

b) returns to ground in bounds
Ruling -
i) Ball remains alive
ii) No penalty

[ajmc]

[QUOTE=Mike L;595154]I'm not making a mountain out of anything. And I find there is an unfortunate feeling that anytime someone takes an opposite position to someone's post that it's either accusatory or insulting. I'm just trying to get someone to justify their answers by the rules for what they've posted and doing it by giving other examples of how the same "ruling" applies to a possible variety of situations. So far, all we've received is what some "think" is logical, but no real rule reference to justify the position. QUOTE]

A valid point, Mike. The reality is, fortunately or unfortunately, that there will never be rules that cover every possibility, and the only thing to guide through those situations is common sense, an understanding of the objectives of the game and it's rules and logic.

A lot of judgments we, as officials make are based on interpretations, some of which have been clearly codified and many that have not. It's likely that we can always conjure up an isolated example that will make just about any interpretation seem fuzzy. Officiating has never been, nor likely will ever be, an absolute science.

Sometimes theories or concepts that apply perfectly to other rules make sense when applied to different circumstances, othertimes not. Whatever ruling we are going to make should, however, make sense even though it can be disagreed with.

In the example you raise, basically the rule suggests that when a player is "forced" OOB, we should ignore the fact he's OOB. That seems to line up with the concept of contact by a player being blocked, or otherwise forced into what would normally be considered illegal or improper contact with an opponent or the ball, to simply be ignored.

You can "What if" these situations to death, but the basic approach seems clearly to be when something is "forced" treat it like it never happened. That seems to make sense, can consistently be applied, but I'm sure there are examples where it doesn't provide the perfect solution. Unless you want a 5,000 page rule book listing every conceivable exception and possibility, some decisions will remain pure judgment and comon sense, and nobody will ever bat 1.000.

Sometimes we can lose sight of the fact that we're talking about rules of a GAME, albeit a great game, an important game, but just a game. The problem is not that neither the rules, nor those of us who enforce them aren't perfect, the problem is that some delude themselves into thinking that perfection is attainable and therefore expected.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

1) A1 goes out unforced by B and grabs the pass and:
a) returns first touching out of bounds:
Ruling -
i) Ball is dead
ii) No penalty

b) returns to ground in bounds
Ruling -
i) Ball remains alive
ii) Penalty for IP (for returning inbounds)

2) A1 is forced out of bounds by B and grabs the pass and:
a) returns to ground out of bounds
Ruling -
i) Ball is dead
ii) No penalty

b) returns to ground in bounds
Ruling -
i) Ball remains alive
ii) No penalty

what if in your examples instead of grabbing (or what I think should be called "catching") he merely bats the ball? Does it still matter where he lands?

[Mike L]

But ajmc, I'm not asking for rules to cover every situation because I agree with you there are some things that we must rely on common sense since there is no rule reference to go to. Such as the helicopter and sniper stuff that's been thrown out but doesn't really apply because for this question there is a rule reference. It's in the definitions under Out of Bounds. The rule may be poorly worded, may lack some clarity or is difficient, but it is there.
It appears there is a problem here precisely because of the "force out exception" for A or K and the rules makers either haven't thought of the possibilities, or simply have yet to figure out how to go about addressing the problem. How can we rule A's status of being OOB changes depending on whether he went out intentionally or if he was blocked out?

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by Mike L

what if in your #2 instead of grabbing (or what I think should be called "catching") he merely bats the ball? Does it still matter where he lands?

Yes, this is like Schroedinger's cat, the status of the ball is undetermined until A1 returns to the ground.

If he is forced out and leaps and touches the ball, it is:
Live if he returns to the ground inbounds.
Dead if he returns to the ground out-of -bounds.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Mike L

But ajmc, I'm not asking for rules to cover every situation because I agree with you there are some things that we must rely on common sense since there is no rule reference to go to. Such as the helicopter and sniper stuff that's been thrown out but doesn't really apply because for this question there is a rule reference. It's in the definitions under Out of Bounds. The rule may be poorly worded, may lack some clarity or is difficient, but it is there.
It appears there is a problem here precisely because of the "force out exception" for A or K and the rules makers either haven't thought of the possibilities, or simply have yet to figure out how to go about addressing the problem. How can we rule A's status of being OOB changes depending on whether he went out intentionally or if he was blocked out?

I was with you there, for a moment Mike, but then you lost me. I have trouble with questions when they start mixing up. I don't know why you think the OOB's rule is "poorly worded", I'm sure well over 99% understand what it means and act accordingly. The problem seems to have been created by an obsession with the meaning of the word "touching" and taking it way beyond where it was ever likely to lead.

I admit I can't tell you, "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" any more than I can guarantee explaining the next several example that have yet to be made up, and will likely never (ever) happen.

I'm going to stick with my understanding that the rule makers want us to ignore just about anything a player may do, if he was somehow forced by an opponent into doing it. As for those "just about" exceptions, I'm willing to wait until I'm presented with one and let my judgment be guided by the situation and what makes sense regarding that situation.

Let me give you a question; On a field where a sideline is marked poorly, and there is an obvious bow in a section of the line. Is a player OOB when he steps on this obviously inaccurate line, or would he be OOB when he steps where the line should be?

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by ajmc

The problem seems to have been created by an obsession with the meaning of the word "touching" and taking it way beyond where it was ever likely to lead.

Or an obsession with conjuring up a meaning to a word that has a definition. Any luck finding a rule to support your position?

[kfo9494]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

One point in this discussion I think needs clarification -

If A 1 is running down the sideline and steps out of bounds and then catches the ball or bats it away from inbounds B1, that touching is not IP. See 9.6.3 - A1 is not a "replaced player, substitute, etc. He retains his status as a player (2-32-1). He can catch or bat the ball (both actions would cause the ball to become dead) but are legal moves. His "interference" in the play is not illegal participation. The only way A1 can be guilty of IP is if he returns inbounds.

Jim, I may be completely confused. But from what I have read on this thread (and I maybe wrong) is some are saying that if A goes out of bounds and then leaps up and bats the ball-then he is to be considered in-bounds.
I mean he either has to be OOB or IB.
So by his status being IB he has returned.
Or am I making this way way too hard.

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by kfo9494

Jim, I may be completely confused. But from what I have read on this thread (and I maybe wrong) is some are saying that if A goes out of bounds and then leaps up and bats the ball-then he is to be considered in-bounds.
I mean he either has to be OOB or IB.
So by his status being IB he has returned.
Or am I making this way way too hard.

No, you're reading it right. I just happen to disagree with that interpretation. If A is out of bounds and he jumps in the air, I still think he's still out of bounds. To say otherwise is not supported by the rules, and it just seems silly. Imagine calling A for having too many players on the field because one or more subs jumped in the air. They myst be either in bounds or out of bounds and, if jumping up makes them in bounds, well that just seems too silly to fly.

In the case you presented, I say it's a dead ball because the pass touched an out of bounds player. There is no IP on this play, just an incomplete pass.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by kdf5

Or an obsession with conjuring up a meaning to a word that has a definition. Any luck finding a rule to support your position?

I don't want to embarrass you Kdf5, but as I've tried patiently to suggest to you, that your ridiculous interpretation, and limitation of what "touching" represents is not spelled out or supported by rule either, except as how you are choosing to interpret it.

Don't be childish and try and sound smart by repeating the same question, which we both know cannot be aswered as you are asking.

In the absence of direct and specific supporting language to specifically address either point, I'm satisfied to rely on common sense and logic, what are you relying on?