I think we ned to bring in the Bob M. interpretation on the matter. :D

I do not personally see how the Rule 2 definition of being out of bounds can be interpreted in any matter other than by black letter of the rule. I have yet to see a rule or authoritative interpretation stating that a player retains his position once he leaves the ground. I am not trying to be contrary but if there is one, please share it with us.

:DWalt - I think I'm going to buy you about 10 beers at the Liberty Bell clinic and when you got a good "buzz" going I'm going to ask you about this thread and watch your reaction.

And, if I knew the other two guys I'd buy them 10 too. It would be worth the price of admission to watch three "buzzed" guys arguing this.

Cheers!

Before, during or after the clinic?

I think you'll find it right after the "authoritive interpretation" stating that a player loses or changes his position once he leaves the ground.

I take it then you don't agree with the Redding Guide and the letter of the rule?

I haven't personally read any Reddings guide explanation that is proported to suggest the interpretation alluded to it. If, however, there is such an interpretation that suggests a player who has established himself as being OOB, can remove or reverse that status by simply jumping up into the air, I would need a lot more explanation and consideration before I could accept it.

I absolutely disagree with your assessment that the "letter of the rule" supports such a contention, rather that this illogical conclusion is the result of an excessively limiting interpretation of what is intended by use of the word "touching" and the intent, and purpose, of the rule in it's entirety.

The first post in this thread contains the Redding play and interpretation that supports this.

As far as the actual wording of the rule is concerned, I don't know how "touching" can be any simpler and imply anything than the present tense of the verb.

With all due respect, it appears you are trying to make the rules fit your interpretation.

In regard to the "intent" that you mention in your previous post, you're not alluding to the spirit of the rule are you? ;)

I didn't realize the initial description was an exact quote. If it is, I don't understand how that conclusion could be correct.

The only thing I'm trying to match my interpretation to is basic common sense and my understanding of the object of this rule.

As for the selection of the present tense of a verb, I have no problem with it's usage, but I don't believe it includes, or implies, any requirement that the touching must be continuous to maintain the status, which the touching OOB creates, simply because that doesn't make any sense and seems unnecessary.

As for the "spirit of the rule", that's something you'd have to ask the rule makers to explain, to be sure of. I don't have access to them, so I'll have to stick with my own assessment of common sense and logic, although I can't seem to grasp any rational purpose or reason to include such a meaningless requirement.

Perhaps you see some purpose, objective, logic or reason, that makes some semblence of sense, that I don't and would be kind enough to share it with me.

Under NCAA, the receiver voluntarily going out of bounds becomes an ineligible receiver. Only eligible receivers may bat a ball. That HS and NCAA treat this play so much differently is bad. NFHS needs to harmonize its rules to NCAA in this instance.

Harmony would be nice, but the road from Damascus to Telaviv, is the same road as Telaviv to Damascus.

agree!

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

Unless of course you elect to completely disregard the exsisting road map! If you do, some feel you have a green light to create your own road...:cool:

Guys, Jim D's succinct interpretation is spot on. The key here is A went OOB on his own accord. He cannot renenter the game legally. I don't wish to rehash this thread as anyone following it knows whats what. Very interesting debate and interpretation. IF any of you disagree with Jim's interpretation I suggest you write a letter to the NFHS rules committee. I bet they interpret this just as Jim has. Happy officiating!

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

This was a very good thread. Hopefully it will develop into a Rule change proposal for consideration by the NFHS Football Committee in January of 2010.
JimD, BobM and others have provided some positive comments and sound reasoning for the committee to consider closing this loophole.
However, that being said, until such time as the Committee changes the current rule This play is legal and the interpretation in the Redding Guide IS correct! Under the current NFHS Rules this player is NOT (by rule) out of bounds. Additionally, for an official to manufacture an interpretation other than the current Redding Interpretation would be erroniuos and would NOT be supported by rule.

Many comments on this and another forums thread's have used words like untenable, illogical, sensible, common sense, spirit of the rules, gut feel, ect. These are all great words and thoughts however, the one problem is again, currently, there is no rule support for a ruling in this situation other than "Legal Play!"

Do I like it? NO!
Do I support it? YES! Of course, this play has rule book support and therefore it has to be legal!
To present a proposal for consideration to close this loophole (as long as it is well thought and would not cause any unintended circumstances) likely would be good for the game. To fabricate ones own ruling on this (or any other) situation would be foolhardy and a bit askew! Actions such as this by officials can NEVER be in the best interest of the game.

Rule references for this situation would include: 2-4-1, 2-29-1, 2 & 3, 7-5-5, 9-6-1 & 2!
And,
Again, since the action, did NOT violate any of the rules listed above, the play is currently, by rule, "Legal!"

We are required to officiate the rules by the rulebook. Someone suggested implementing 1-1-6. Unfortunatly, this would be an incorrect application of 1-1-6. Why? Simply because 1-1-6 is for utilization when a situation occurs that is not specifically covered in the rules. Like it or not, and as unfortunate as it may be, this situation IS specifically covered by the current rules as, the player, (by definition) is NOT (as much as we want him to be) out of bounds. :cool:

I won't argue with any of your suppositions, except that your conclusion still requires acceptance of an interpretation that, in my judgment, makes absolutely no sense and has no logical reason. In the rare circumstance that a player, who has rendered himself OOB, jumps in the air while OOB to touch a live ball, I'm going to consider the ball dead the instance he touches it.

I'm not disregarding any ruling, I'm simply enforcing a ruling that I believe is implied by existing rules and disagreeing with your conclusions. I am perfectly willing to accept any consequences that result from applying basic common sense and logic to interpret a rule that does not specifically address such an odd ( and specific) circumstance.

I just don't believe we're out there to enforce anything we agree isn't right, just because someone has suggested, "it says so". Sorry, may be willing to sell my soul, but not for something as trivial as this.