Reddings guide illegal participation

[jaybird]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

Just won't give up, will ya?

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by NEWOFFICIAL

Im struggling with with an issue from the Reddings Guide....Page 38 2007 edition....PASSING GAME ....

Receiver A 83 runs along sideline takes two steps out of bounds and jumps while in air (a ) catches the ball and lands inbounds...(b) bats the ball to A87 inbounds who catches the ball....while A 83 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....

How in (b) is the catch legal ..and isnt A83 guilty of illegal participation on that as well ?

The 2008 Redding Guide contains the same play. Here is the next paragraph:

"In the preceding example, the receiver was not out of bounds when he touched the ball since he was airborne, and not touching out of bounds when he contacted the ball. He is, however, guilty of IP (9.6.1D 2003 Ed.) which is discussed in Chapter 10".

In the play he says (a) is IP and (b) isn't but in the explanation in the next paragraph I quoted above, he says "He is guilty of IP" but doesn't distinguish whether he's talking about only (a) or both (a) and (b). Maybe someone has the '03 Case Book? But in the meantime I think I will go with Rogers Redding and George Demetriou and their 70 yrs of experience.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by jaybird

Just won't give up, will ya?

It's not about giving up, or not giving up. I'm open to being persuaded that your assessment makes sense, just explain why it does, with something more than "because I said so", or that you or someone else thinks it says so.

With all due respect to the Redding people, "the receiver was not out of bounds when he touched the ball since he was airborne", just seems ridiculous to me and defies common sense, logic and the notion of rationality in the construction and purpose of any rule.

Don't get yourself all worked up about it, the chances of this actually happening are remote, but if they should repeat, we're both empowered to rule as we think we should. Either way, someone might just ask for an explanation. I'm comfortable in explaining my conclusion.

[kdf5]

So if you're "open to being persuaded" then why is it that a "founding member of the Colorado Collegiate Football Officials Assoc. and President of the Colorado Football Officials Assoc." and who's authored a respected guide to the NF rules "makes absolutely no sense"? It seems to me that you're not open to being persuaded at all and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, period, and only because you say so.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by kdf5

So if you're "open to being persuaded" then why is it that a "founding member of the Colorado Collegiate Football Officials Assoc. and President of the Colorado Football Officials Assoc." and who's authored a respected guide to the NF rules "makes absolutely no sense"? It seems to me that you're not open to being persuaded at all and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, period, and only because you say so.

Why are you getting frustrated and angry? You raised a point and asked a question and I've tried to explain my position as best I can. I'm not telling you you're wrong, I'm telling you I don't understand how your position can be right. If you're smart enough to convince me that your position makes sense, I'll certainly reconsider, but thus far you haven't even come close.

With all due respect to the, ""founding member of the Colorado Collegiate Football Officials Assoc. and President of the Colorado Football Officials Assoc." (and) who's authored a respected guide to the NF rules", suggesting that, ""the receiver was not out of bounds when he touched the ball since he was airborne", just doesn't light any lights for me. I didn't say you. or he, was wrong, I just don't see how that position could possibly be right and nothing you've offered thus far has been at all persuasive or convincing.

If you're ever confronted with this situation you can do what you think is right, and hope nobody asks you to explain why.

[jaybird]

If you're ever confronted with this situation you can do what you think is right, and hope nobody asks you to explain why.

Why? What would be so difficult in saying, "Coach, by rule there is no foul because by definition the player was not OOB"? Enough said. Next play.
... and all it took was one sentence, not six paragraphs!

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by jaybird

If you're ever confronted with this situation you can do what you think is right, and hope nobody asks you to explain why.

Why? What would be so difficult in saying, "Coach, by rule there is no foul because by definition the player was not OOB"? Enough said. Next play.
... and all it took was one sentence, not six paragraphs!

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

Good luck.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by ajmc

If you're ever confronted with this situation you can do what you think is right, and hope nobody asks you to explain why.

See, there you go again. "hope nobody asks you to explain why". I think I'll be able to explain it a lot easier than you will. But like you said, it's probably never going to happen, you hope.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by kdf5

See, there you go again. "hope nobody asks you to explain why". I think I'll be able to explain it a lot easier than you will. But like you said, it's probably never going to happen, you hope.

I don't know, Kdf5 offering,"When a ball touches anything OOB it's dead, and he clearly went OOB before he touched it", doesn't seem to leave a lot of room for additional discussion.

If there should be a follow comment about, "Wait a minute, doesn't the rule say touching.....", I'll rely on a response of, "That doesn't make any sense and is ridiculous" to end the conversation. That is, if it ever happens.

[KWH]

AJMC-
Consider this.
If you are a rule book guy, you almost certainly would have to agree that by definition (Rule 2-29) the player was NOT Out of Bounds. With all due respect, you continue to reach and search for a definition of an in bounds player however, unfortunatly, none exsists.
Additionally, you have formed a conclusion that if a player is not out of bounds he MUST then be in-bounds. Unfortunatly, as much as you want it to be, your conclusion is not the conclusion of and is in direct conflict with the current NFHS Rules Book.

And by the way, just because you "don the stripes" does not by any strech of the imagination mean you are: "empowered to rule as you think you should" as you have stated, rather, you are required to rule by the rule book.

Last but not least, for you to suggest Roger's and Georges ruling in the Redding Guide 'makes no sense" is silly. This play/action has been around for years, and the ruling is always the same and for the same reason. It is still referred to as Rule 2-29!

If you don't like the ruling, (which is abundantly apparrent) there is a process, draft a rule change proposal, (make sure dot all your i's and cross all your t's) and submit it to your state association for possible consideration by the NFHS committee next January. The NFHS is a grass-roots organization and you are most certainly empowered to submit any change proposal you like, but it must be signed off by your state.

-Kevin

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I don't know, Kdf5 offering,"When a ball touches anything OOB it's dead, and he clearly went OOB before he touched it", doesn't seem to leave a lot of room for additional discussion.

The only additional discussion I would have with you is why not, like jaybird said, just follow the rule? It's their rule, not yours, so just blame the ruling on them and you're off the hook. The only thing that doesn't make any sense and is illogical is your insistence in making up your own ruling.

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by KWH

AJMC-
Consider this.
If you are a rule book guy, you almost certainly would have to agree that by definition (Rule 2-29) the player was NOT Out of Bounds. With all due respect, you continue to reach and search for a definition of an in bounds player however, unfortunatly, none exsists.

-Kevin

Kevin,

I wasn't going to post on this subject again, but I do have to disagree that "by definition, the player was not out of bounds".

The rule book does not give us the status of a player who is up in the air. It doesn't tell us if he's out-of-bounds, not out-of-bounds, in-bounds or neither-in-nor-out. If it did, we wouldn't be having this endless discussion. Based on a careful reading of the rules, we've come to various conclusions - all subject to our own interpretations. Everyone has made some excellent points, and I feel bad going against Reddings, but I'm comfortable with my interpretation (OOB, dead ball). You can keep yours (legal play) and others can keep IP if they want.

[KWH]

Jim D-

Hey Jim, please don't misunderstand, I don't like this any more than you do!

That being said:

The rule book most certainly and unequivocally tells us he is not out-of-bounds!
Rule 2-29-2 states: A player...is out of bounds when any part of the person is touching anything...that is on or outside the sideline or endline.

Therefore, until such time as you can get the federation to replace the wording "...is touching anything..." with ...has touched anything and has yet to return inbounds..." your interpretation (as much as you don't want it to be) remains incorrect.

Like it or not, based on the most currect rule book, Rogers Redding and George Demetrieau interpretation is correct!!!

Nuff said

-Kevin

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by KWH

[B]
The NFHS is a grass-roots organization and you are most certainly empowered to submit any change proposal you like, but it must be signed off by your state.

-Kevin

Although Jim D has subsequently corrected your mistatements above, the smugness of you conclusions, seems worthy of a response. For the record, I absolutely disagree with your assessment that the language of 2.29 refutes my primary contention. Although I agree 2.29 could be rewritten to be more specific, and perhaps inclusive, I do not find it's meaning at all difficult to include the simple notion that once a player goes OOB, he is OOB until he subsequently becomes In-bounds.

Long ago, I reached a general conclusion that all of the rules of football each have some purpose, some objective, some reason related to the fair and equitable playing of the game. Unfortunately, some rules are not written as consicely or clearly as they might have been, but I am convinced there is logic, reason and purpose for every rule.

At times, not nearly enough for some, rules are subject to modification and further explanation, but I do not believe the intent of any rule is to be needlessly silly or counterproductive nor our rules makers deliberately try and confuse or mislead interested parties.

I do believe the rule makers value the judgment, common sense and the understanding of fair play and the intent of the game field officials employ to enforce each rule as it was intended. Although I've repeatedly asked for some evidence of ANY logical purpose, ANY hint of common or practical sense, or ANY rational reason to explain why a player who has already gone OOB, could somehow retain, or temprarily regain, an In-bounds status by simply jumping up into the air, none has been offered.

I understand the logic and rational of why a player is considered "different" when he goes OOB, because it's simple, logical and makes perfect sense in relation to the flow of the game. The game of football is not rocket science, not the difference between guilt or innocense in a capitol trial nor is it intended to be.

Each rule must have a purpose, an objective, that makes sense to the operation of the game. My limited comprehension ability fails to uncover any possible purpose, any rational objective, any logic, any contribution to the flow of the game that your interpretation, of this rather simple rule, would provide.

As I've previously suggested, reasonably politely, as officials we ARE absolutely empowered to make rulings as we believe they are intended to be made, and we are fully accountable for all decisions we render. If you are comfortable rendering a decision you are not capable of explaining in terms of basic common sense and logic, rather than reason the purpose of the rule because of an obscure interpretation that defies common sense and logic, that's on you.

As stated previously, if you can offer some additional purpose, reason, objective or benefit to the flow of the game that your interpretation offers, I'll be willing to reconsider my position.

[KWH]

AJMC & Jim D -

I suggest you present this particular play to your respective State Rules Interpreters. In fairness, I suggest you present them with both the AJMC/JIMD interpretation along with the Rogers Redding/George Demetriou iterpretation.

Then provide us all with your SRI's individual interpretations.

The results should make for some interesting forum reading.