The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #76 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 21, 2009, 01:51pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 118
Thanks for the suggestion, but I probably won't bother them. This has been more of an "it's April and there isn't much else to discuss right now on the board" arguments. I've worked a long time, and I've never seen or heard of this play happing in a game, and I don't expect to in the future. If it does happen, I'm comfortable with calling it incomplete.

I've seen the arguments for several possible calls, and all are well thought out, equally plausible and equally justified. I honestly don't think there is a "right" answer to this under the rules as they are currently written.
  #77 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 22, 2009, 12:23pm
KWH KWH is offline
Small Business Owner
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Posts: 520
Cool Never let the rule book get in the way of a good football game!

AJMC-
I have two "resonable polite" questions for you:
1) I am wondering if you as of yet have "empowered yourself" with the opportunity to discuss this play your State Rules Interpreter and thus garner your states official interpretation to determine if it refutes or supports your assesment in regards to what you have claimed an "obscure interpretation" which defies common sense, logic, reason, good judgment and understanding of fair play, even though the interpretation was made by Rogers Redding - Chair of the NCAA Rules Committee?

2) In the extremely remote chance your state SRI should support Rogers Interpretation, will you retain your belief you are "empowered to make rulings as your believe they are intended to be made" even when they directly conflict with your SRI albiet all in the name of Truth, Justice, and the American Way?

Please be advised even with my limited comprehension my primary contention remains to garner a general conclusion absent of any smugness.

Please advise...


Knowledge is good! - Emil Faber

Last edited by KWH; Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 01:10pm. Reason: Because I believe I am empowered to do so!
  #78 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 22, 2009, 03:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by KWH View Post
AJMC-
I have two "resonable polite" questions for you:
1) I am wondering if you as of yet have "empowered yourself" with the opportunity to discuss this play your State Rules Interpreter and thus garner your states official interpretation to determine if it refutes or supports your assesment in regards to what you have claimed an "obscure interpretation" which defies common sense, logic, reason, good judgment and understanding of fair play, even though the interpretation was made by Rogers Redding - Chair of the NCAA Rules Committee?

2) In the extremely remote chance your state SRI should support Rogers Interpretation, will you retain your belief you are "empowered to make rulings as your believe they are intended to be made" even when they directly conflict with your SRI albiet all in the name of Truth, Justice, and the American Way?

Please be advised even with my limited comprehension my primary contention remains to garner a general conclusion absent of any smugness.

Please advise...


Knowledge is good! - Emil Faber
No, I don't see any need to bolster my understanding of something I'm perfectly comfortable about. Especially because someone who hasn't been able to muster up any sort of rational argument to support or explain a position I believe is simply foolish, assigns me to.

Actually, I think your "primary contention" is to try and make yourself sound smarter than you actually are, which by the way you are dismally failing to accomplish. Part of that is that you selected a really dumb topic to get all worked up about, and I suspect part is a problem with your ego.

It seems it's you who have trouble with your interpretation. If you need help to bolster your position, and feel it worthy of the effort, knock yourself out. I don't accept work assignments from people who can't explain themselves. If you do choose to pursue this issue, see if you can find out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, will you?
  #79 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 22, 2009, 04:42pm
KWH KWH is offline
Small Business Owner
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Posts: 520
Cool Never let the rule book get in the way of a good football game!

I stand corrected!
For those of you who sent me Private messages telling me I am wasting my time even responding to this guy, you were right, I was wrong. And, as one of you so eliquently coined a conclusive phrase that most certainly bears repeating:

AJMC is a Legend in his own mind!

-Nuff Said



"Knowledge is Good" - Emil Faber
  #80 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 22, 2009, 06:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by KWH View Post
I stand corrected!
For those of you who sent me Private messages telling me I am wasting my time even responding to this guy, you were right, I was wrong.


"Knowledge is Good" - Emil Faber
Now, Do you feel better? It's too bad neither you, nor those who sent you private messages, saw this as an opportunity to simply explain your position, provide any semblence of common sense or logic that would lend credibility to your position, or logically refute any explanations I tried to offer.

I asked for your reasoning, besides, "someone else told me that's what the words mean (as least as they choose to understand", which really doesn't say a whole lot to defend your interpretation. Especially after you, and maybe even some of those who sent you private messages, acknowledge that even though your interpretation doesn't make any sense, you're going to go with it anyway.

I agree "Knowledge is good" but you also might consider, "Knowledge has no value until you use it, or share it". Thus far, you've chosen to do neither. Barking about it doesn't count.
  #81 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jul 22, 2009, 11:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 178
don't mean to dredge anything up, but I was reading older threads.

PLAY: A22 is running a sweep. He fumbles forward, the ball bounces in bounds, crosses the sideine in the air. B55 (who'd started legally on defense but is now standing OOB) bats the ball backwards to teammate B50. Dead ball. Team A gets it at the spot of the fumble.

But if B55 has the presence of mind to JUMP just before he bats it, it's Team B's ball then? (If so, I"ll have to file this one away, b/c I'm sure that before this thread I'd have ruled that the ball was touched OOB and therefore dead.)

Follow up question: even though he's in the air beyond the sideline, is B55 still governed by the same rule about batting a loose ball? That is, if he he bats it forward, is it a penalty? [ncaa rules]
  #82 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 23, 2009, 09:07am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 118
It's the same arguement as above. If you think he's inbounds by rule, treat it the same as if he were standing in the middle of the field. If you think he's out of bounds, rule it that way. When he jumps, I say he's out of bounds but other say he's inbounds. Pick which one you're comfortable with and go with that.
  #83 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 23, 2009, 09:16am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rule 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.2 . . . A ball in player possession is out of bounds when the runner or the
ball touches anything, other than another player or game official that is on or out-
side a 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.
Doesn't seem much room for interpretation here. A player who last touched the ground inbounds but is in the air above the sideline is inbounds.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
  #84 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 23, 2009, 10:00am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
Doesn't seem much room for interpretation here. A player who last touched the ground inbounds but is in the air above the sideline is inbounds.

I agree on that. Howeve, the substance of the thread was the status of a person who is out of bounds (after having touched the ground out of bounds) and then jumps in the air while still wide of the sideline. Is he in, is he out or is he neither? There are plenty of arguements to review and consider in the six pages of responses.
  #85 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 23, 2009, 10:53am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,621
Ah. See your point.

Well, "you are where you were till you get where you're going." He's out until he's not, and being in the air isn't sufficient to change his status going either direction.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
  #86 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 23, 2009, 12:50pm
KWH KWH is offline
Small Business Owner
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Posts: 520
Thumbs down Just because you are NOT OOB does not mean you are inbounds!

While many feel the need to belabor the point, the rule book remains silent on "inbounds" and as such, their is no definition of an inbounds player. However, there is a clear definition of when a player is out of bounds, and this definition is only applicable when such player ...IS TOUCHING ANYTHING.... (As per 2-28-1)
Some have formed a conclusion that a player must be inbounds if he is not out of bounds. This conclusion is incorrect. The player in the OP did not meet the definition of out of bounds as per 2-29-1. Therefore he is simply NOT out of bounds and nothing else.
__________________
"Knowledge is Good" - Emil Faber

Last edited by KWH; Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 12:54pm. Reason: Bad speller
  #87 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 23, 2009, 12:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
Doesn't seem much room for interpretation here. A player who last touched the ground inbounds but is in the air above the sideline is inbounds.
Wouldn't argue with your above statement, but that's NOT the problem. The problem, causing all the agita, is the interpretation that a player who has clearly stepped (stomped or laid down) out of bounds (OOB), on his own, can somehow revert back to NOT being OOB, by simply jumping up into the air, even though doing so while remaining outside the field of play, and therefore can legally participate in play from his airborne position, because while in the air, he's, "not touching anything".
  #88 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 23, 2009, 01:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 156
I agree with KWH on this. The NF has a definition for out of bounds player, but no definition for inbounds player. For a player to be out of bounds, the rule states that the player must be touching something that is out of bounds (other than a player or an official). An airborne player cannot be out of bounds by this definition. Maybe he should, but that would be for the rules committee to decide, not us on an individual basis.
  #89 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 23, 2009, 01:07pm
KWH KWH is offline
Small Business Owner
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Posts: 520
Alf-
We all clearly understand your point, and I am beyond certain however you will repeat it 7 more times! However, the play in the OP and the play in the Redding Study Guide were discussed at the NFHS Rules Interpreters Meeting in Indy on July 14th. These plays are legal as the player involved was not, by definition, out of bounds!
If you need further clarification, you should contact your association and/or state rules interpreter.

Nuff said!
__________________
"Knowledge is Good" - Emil Faber
  #90 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 23, 2009, 01:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by KWH View Post
Alf-
We all clearly understand your point, and I am beyond certain however you will repeat it 7 more times! However, the play in the OP and the play in the Redding Study Guide were discussed at the NFHS Rules Interpreters Meeting in Indy on July 14th. These plays are legal as the player involved was not, by definition, out of bounds!
If you need further clarification, you should contact your association and/or state rules interpreter.

Nuff said!
Not quite! I wasn't at the meeting in Indy, and no word has come to us nor have I seen anything in print in any official publication relating to this play. It may or may not have been discussed in any number of meetings, but until the NFHS talks about it, all we have is the rule book and hearsay.

The rule as written, published and disseminated, does not define the satus of such a player. Until that changes, the question is open for interpretation.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
alf rides again, alf's english lesson, illegal participation, reading comprehension 101, totally stupic

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
illegal Substitution or illegal Participation verticalStripes Football 11 Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:57am
Reddings Study Guide JFlores Football 8 Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00am
Illegal Participation, Illegal Touching, Nothing BoBo Football 13 Thu Nov 01, 2007 02:09pm
Woohoo - Reddings Guide came today HLin NC Football 4 Fri Jun 01, 2007 07:11am
Illegal Formation or Illegal participation? wgw Football 9 Mon Aug 29, 2005 09:31am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:15am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1