Reddings guide illegal participation

[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 ?

[waltjp]

FED 2-29-1

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.

In your example a player who is airborne is not touching anything out of bounds so the player is not considered out of bounds. The bat is legal and because A83 did not return to the field of play he is not guilty of illegal participation.

[NEWOFFICIAL]

THANKS ..Ive yet to find any official I know get that correctly.....it seems there has to be a foul on this play... yet there is not ?

[NEWOFFICIAL]

Every official i pose this to says...NO WAY...I appreciate Walts response..and Ii believe hes correct...does anybody else have anything else on this ?

FED RULES PLEASE

[waltjp]

Further Reading:

NFHS Forum: tough sideline call

NFHS Forum: Coach's special play discussion

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by NEWOFFICIAL

Every official i pose this to says...NO WAY...I appreciate Walts response..and Ii believe hes correct...does anybody else have anything else on this ?

FED RULES PLEASE

It's different than basketball. In basketball, your status is the same as where you last touched the floor. So a player who is OOB remains OOB until he touches inbounds and is not touching OOB.

In football, a player who is not touching something OOB other than another player is inbounds.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

It's different than basketball. In basketball, your status is the same as where you last touched the floor. So a player who is OOB remains OOB until he touches inbounds and is not touching OOB.

In football, a player who is not touching something OOB other than another player is inbounds.

The interpretation, that a player who has already established himself as being OOB can continue to affect a play by simply jumping into the air is ridiculous. The sensible and logical way to deal with this is simply to consider him OOB (whether he's on the ground or over it) which would simply make the ball dead when he touched it.

To suggest that a player who would catch a ball, while touching the ground OOB is somehow different than someone who has touched the ground OOB and subsequently jumps in the air is way to hard to explain and keep a straight face.

A player is inbounds until he goes OOB, and remains OOB until he comes back inbounds.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by ajmc

A player is inbounds until he goes OOB, and remains OOB until he comes back inbounds.

Do you have anything close to a rule or case play that substantiates this?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Do you have anything close to a rule or case play that substantiates this?

No I don't, do you have anything close to a rule or case play that refutes it?

My interpretation is based on reality and common sense, on what would you base arguing against it?

[Mike L]

I happen to agree with some of the arguments posted on the links provided by waltjp.
1) A player must be either in bounds or out of bounds. There is no other possibility, there is no nebulous no mans land here.
2) The player intentionally left the field of play (he is OOB).
3) Once he leaps, he is by defintion no longer OOB because he is not touching anything OOB. So, if he's not OOB he must be in bounds.
4) I would ignore the leaping if it has no effect on the play, however in our op the player now legally bats the ball. But, he must by definition had to have returned from OOB. Which means we have a player intentionally leaving the field and returning, which is IP.
5) I particularly like this decision because it allows me to tell a coach that maybe comes up with this as a plan that it is not going to work the way he hopes.

Of course I can also see the reasoning behind just ruling it incomplete and moving along as a game management decision.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by ajmc

No I don't, do you have anything close to a rule or case play that refutes it?

My interpretation is based on reality and common sense, on what would you base arguing against it?

As a matter of fact I do have something that refutes your stance, the rule book.

FED 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 outside 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.

2-4 Catch

Art. 1
A catch is the act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds or being contacted by an opponent in such a way that he is prevented from returning to the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball.

[kdf5]

A player is one of two things: in bounds or out of bounds. If he's touching (not touched, TOUCHING) something out of bounds, he's out. If he's not touching then he's in bounds.

If he steps on the sidelines and leaps and bats a ball he's gone out of bounds then back in bounds and participated, which by definition means he's had an influence on the play and by 9-6-1 he's committed IP.

Until they come up with a definition of inbounds you can't come to any other conclusion but he's in bounds when he's not touching out of bounds. Redding's in (b) is wrong.

[Jim D.]

Just went through this whole discussion again.

http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=5202.0

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by waltjp

As a matter of fact I do have something that refutes your stance, the rule book.

Sorry Walt, what you have is only your interpretation of what you perceive the rule book says, which defies common sense, logic and reality. We all should understand that the verbiage used doesn't always precisely cover any and all possible intepretations of what is intended by any rule, and that common sense and logic, to keep sanity in perspective, have to be considered when the verbiage fails to relate to any specific instance.

Kd5; your interpretation of what you read in the rule book, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Just to keep this subject straight, we're NOT talking about someone who is inbounds, leaps over the sideline and touches (redirects) a live ball before ever becoming OOB.

This question relates, specifically, to a player who has already rendered himself OOB, and while OOB leaps up into the air. You are suggesting that, somehow, this act of leaping into the air from an OOB position, miraculously, returns the player to an inbounds status. Forgive me, but this assessment makes absolutely no sense, has no basis is logic, common sense or anything related to the flow of the game.

We all should agree that when a loose ball is touched by a player who is "standing" OOB, it becomes dead. What would be the purpose, the objective, of a rule that allowed an (already) OOB player, who is not legally able to participate or interfere with play UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES to regain that capability by simply jumping into the air?

Why then should this ridiculous interpretation be the least bit credible?

As has been attempted, thus far unsuccessfully, how would any official logically explain that the player, who has been rendered OOB, somehow becomes inbounds again by virtue of simply jumping into the air, while OOB? I'm sorry, but the answer, "because it (or you think it) says so" doesn't get the job done.

When your own judgment tells you that your interpretation makes no common sense and can't be logically explained, the problem is likely your adherence to a bad interpretation.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Sorry Walt, what you have is only your interpretation of what you perceive the rule book says, which defies common sense, logic and reality. We all should understand that the verbiage used doesn't always precisely cover any and all possible intepretations of what is intended by any rule, and that common sense and logic, to keep sanity in perspective, have to be considered when the verbiage fails to relate to any specific instance.

Kd5; your interpretation of what you read in the rule book, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Just to keep this subject straight, we're NOT talking about someone who is inbounds, leaps over the sideline and touches (redirects) a live ball before ever becoming OOB.

This question relates, specifically, to a player who has already rendered himself OOB, and while OOB leaps up into the air. You are suggesting that, somehow, this act of leaping into the air from an OOB position, miraculously, returns the player to an inbounds status. Forgive me, but this assessment makes absolutely no sense, has no basis is logic, common sense or anything related to the flow of the game.

We all should agree that when a loose ball is touched by a player who is "standing" OOB, it becomes dead. What would be the purpose, the objective, of a rule that allowed an (already) OOB player, who is not legally able to participate or interfere with play UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES to regain that capability by simply jumping into the air?

Why then should this ridiculous interpretation be the least bit credible?

As has been attempted, thus far unsuccessfully, how would any official logically explain that the player, who has been rendered OOB, somehow becomes inbounds again by virtue of simply jumping into the air, while OOB? I'm sorry, but the answer, "because it (or you think it) says so" doesn't get the job done.

When your own judgment tells you that your interpretation makes no common sense and can't be logically explained, the problem is likely your adherence to a bad interpretation.

Al, it's not perception - it's right there in black and white. In at least three places 'out of bounds' is defined with the word 'touching'. Additionally, a catch is defined as 'establishing player possession' and 'first contacting the ground inbounds'.

Nowhere in the rule book or case book is it suggested that a player needs to re-establish his position inbounds after touching out of bounds. If you can find anything so support your own personal interpretation I'd be happy to consider it.