I'm glad you finally acknowledge you comprehend, "my point", although I'm not so sure you actually do. Had you just ONCE offered some semblance of logic as to why your position makes any basic common sense, whatsoever, or tried to explain some rationale to support your position, I may have been more persuaded to consider your position as being serious. Considering you inability, or refusal, to do so I 'm still unable to accept your premise.

I was merely trying to be polite in answering, what seemed like foolish and naive questions, you insisted on asking repeatedly providing you with the benefit of the doubt as to the seriousness of your position. That was before I concluded you were more interested in spouting off, than contributing anything of value to the issue.

Thankfully, living in this great land of ours we are each free to follow what we believe to be correct, including unsanctioned interpretations and opinions whether they be supported by common sense and logic or because someone else told us to, despite lacking any common sense or logic. As long as we accept all consequences for our choices, those choices are entirely ours to make.

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

Alf-
The interpretation I have presented is that of the NFHS!
In theory, that should be sufficient for every one of your requirements.

As for your opinion that, "...we are each free to follow what we believe to be correct...As long as we accept all consequences for our choices, those choices are entirely ours to make. I say stick to your guns Alf! History has shown us that attitudes such as this have a way of greatly shortening the period of time a person with such an attitude is allowed to masquerade in an officials uniform!

That is one opinion on this subject. Another opinion is that no rule, of any sport, would intentionally or deliberately be in direct conflict with common sense, logic and the basic tone of the game.

Sorry, but I don't agree that the rule (NF: 2-29-1) requires the contact, that caused a player to become OOB to be constant, and continuous, for that player to remain OOB. I understand and agree that an airborne player does not become OOB until he touches something (including the ground) OOB, but once he satisfyies that requirement and becomes OOB, his subsequent jumping up into the air is not going to change his status.

That's what I mean by logic, common sense and the basic tone of the game.

Sorry, jaybird. I know this post has gone on way too long, but the whole issue is not supported by either rule or logic which is why we have this whole arguement.

If the player who jumps is not out of bounds (and I understand that logic since he's not touching anything out of bounds) the question remains, "what is he"? Here the rule is silent. Presumably, he's either inbounds (and guilty of IP) or he's in a state of not out-of-bounds or not in-bounds. The rule does not tell us which it is, and logic would seem to say he must be in if he ain't out so we have a flag. That's as valid an interpretation as any other I've seen. I don't think the rules makers ever envisioned an neither in nor out state so I can't see how this play could be legal.

You are welcome to your view and I'm fine with it, but the rule as written leaves it open to interpretaion. There is no "right" answer as yet, and the NFHS is silent on any interpretaion.

Redding guide - Illegal Participation
 

Guys:
I have enjoyed this discussion on this illegal participation but I know one of the coaches in our area, who reads this forum, is probably incorporating this play into his playbook already! <g>

So I went to the source to get some guidance. I emailed the author of the Redding study guide on this issue. I don't have permission to quote the email, so let me explain the gist of what he said in terms of our discussion.

The assumption some here have made that a player is either in bounds or out of bounds is not correct. There is a third state - call it a transition state- and this "void" in the rules is intentional because not to have it creates other problems. (I can't give further details cause I don't know any, so don't shoot the messenger!).

Anyway, the Redding Guide is correct and option B is a legal play as long as the player doesn't catch the ball and land out of bounds. Weird, but there it is. (and I hope that coach doesn't read this thread this far! or if he does, when I ask him in pregame if he has any unusual plays, he'd better confess).

-Raider

Appreciate your efforts, but if "author of the Redding study guide" is either unwilling, or possibly unable, to explain or possibly defend his, "transition state" hypothesis in clear and understandable language, that makes enough sense that I can subsequently explain it to someone else, I'm not buying it, sorry. If you want to accept something, you can't fathom, as gospel, without understanding it, that's your option.

When someone can't (or won't) explain, or defend, what they're trying to sell, it's usually a valid warning that should give pause about buying. As for your coach, should he run some trick play past you before the game, you might advise him, "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.

Alf-

One simple question:

1) Can you please explain why, the NFHS continues to defy any sense of logic, common sense and the basic tone of the game by annually refusing to change the wording of Rule 2-29-2, from ...is touching anything... to something like perhaps ...is or has touched anything... as you, in your opinion, so desperatly intepret it to read????


This seems like such a simple fix. There must be some blatently obvious reasoning! Please share with us some of your insight and wisdom that the rest of us commoners so apparently lack! After all, if you can't (or won't) explain, or defend, what you're trying to sell, it's usually a valid warning that we should give pause about buying your interpretation.

Thank you in advance

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.