Reddings guide illegal participation

[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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by waltjp

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.

Walt, I understand what the rule book says, and what is says is that for a player to become OOB, he needs to touch OOB, and I have no problem with that. Nowhere, that I can find, does it state or even suggest that to remain OOB, that touching must be constant.

On the contrary, the notion that by somehow leaping up into the air, after establishing himself as being OOB would somehow automatically revert his status back to being inbounds, just doesn't make a lick of common sense nor offer any reasonable logic that follows the general flow of any rule regarding being OOB.

People who are OOB are not supposed to participate in the game, participation is reserved for those who are inbounds (legally). That's not rocket science. I think we all agree a player is either inbounds or OOB. There's no mystery associated with this, or shouldn't be.

If a player is (touching) OOB, he's OOB and his touching a live ball, kills the ball. That's crystal clear and makes perfect sense. If a player goes OOB, then returns inbounds (under the wrong conditions) he comits a foul if he subsequently participates (interferes with) in the play. The logic is clear, when you're OOB you can't play and if you touch the ball, you kill it.

How does reversing this logic and concept make any sense by suggesting, a player (who has clearly established himself as being OOB) can somehow reestablish his status as being inbounds by simply jumping into the air (while OOB).

Trying to apply Illegal Participation to a situation like this seems way too harsh, because the vast majority of situations is simply someone trying to make a play and inadvertently, accidentally or even deliberately stepping on a line. Why would the rules want to provide this ridiculous advantage?

Logic, common sense and the written rule dictate that a live ball touching a player OOB is a dead ball. What possible difference could it make whether that player is still touching the ground or jumping above it when he touches the ball?

If ever there was an example of reading way more into a rule than was ever intended, this has to be it. When something doesn't make ANY SENSE it can't be right.

[ppaltice]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I think we all agree a player is either inbounds or OOB.

I don't agree with this statement.

A player who is stepping on the sideline and the field of play is out of bounds. If he was previously running down the sideline out of bounds and takes one step in the field of play while maintaining contact with the sideline, he is still out of bounds. He has also returned to the field may be susceptable to IP by rule.

A player is either out of bounds or not out of bounds (which is not the same as in bounds). A player who returns to the field of play can do so while still remaining out of bounds. An airborne player who is not touching anything cannot be out of bounds by rule.

Instead of devising a rule set based on what you think it should be, why don't you use the rules that NF provides?

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by ppaltice

I don't agree with this statement.

A player who is stepping on the sideline and the field of play is out of bounds. If he was previously running down the sideline out of bounds and takes one step in the field of play while maintaining contact with the sideline, he is still out of bounds. He has also returned to the field may be susceptable to IP by rule.

A player is either out of bounds or not out of bounds (which is not the same as in bounds). A player who returns to the field of play can do so while still remaining out of bounds. An airborne player who is not touching anything cannot be out of bounds by rule.

Instead of devising a rule set based on what you think it should be, why don't you use the rules that NF provides?

Unfortunately, the NF rules have a "hole" here - they do not define what "inbounds" is, nor do they give the status of a player who is airborne. We can assume, reason and speculate on the status, but this play will remain the subject of arguement and discussion until the NF either revises the rules or provides an official interpretation on their website or in one of their publications.

What's the record for posts on one topic?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

until the NF either revises the rules or provides an official interpretation on their website or in one of their publications.

Well there was an NF casebook play up through 2003 that said an airborne player previously touching out of bounds was not out of bounds. There has been no rule change, editorial change or retraction published by the NF.

On something this fundamental, that is good enough for me.

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Well there was an NF casebook play up through 2003 that said an airborne player previously touching out of bounds was not out of bounds. There has been no rule change, editorial change or retraction published by the NF.

On something this fundamental, that is good enough for me.

I'd love to see it. That might settle it if someone still had the case play.

[insatty]

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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by insatty

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.

[KWH]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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

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...

[kdf5]

And once again you produce pages of shuck and jive without the slightest hint of any rule reference to back up your position.

2-29-1...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.

Note it doesn't say "has touched". It says "touching". Please cite the rule that says a player who steps out of bounds has "rendered" himself out of bounds even when he's not touching out of bounds. I've cited the rule that says he's OB if he's "touching". Let's have yours. Rule ______.

Now, if he's touching then he's OB and if he isn't touching then he's got to be inbounds. There is no other status a player can have is there? He's in or he's out, period. He's out when he's "TOUCHING" (not has touched, "TOUCHING" with an -ing, touching, again referencing Rule 2-29-1). There's my first rule citing. Let's see yours. By the way, rules are listed in the book with hyphens such as 9-6-1 and 6-3-1.

9-6-1...Prior to a change of possession, or when there is no change of possession, no player of A or K shall go out of bounds and return during the down unless blocked out of bounds by an opponent. If a player is blocked out of bounds by an opponent and returns inbounds during the down, he shall return at the first opportunity. There's my second rule citing.

So how did he return? He "returned" when he left the ground and batted the ball. It doesn't matter where he is when he leaves the ground. When he leaves the ground he is no longer "touching". And by batting the ball to A87 he has had an influence on the play. This is called "participation". 2-30...Participation is any act or action by a player or non-player that has an influence on play.. There's my third rule citing. Let's see yours.

9-6-1 is called Illegal Participation. It's a live ball basic spot foul. Now here's what I predict you will do. You are going to compose a seven paragraph fiction telling me what I think I read is wrong and that my logic is not as good as yours and what you know is right and you don't need to cite any rules because we should all know you know. Come on, I dare you, cite rules to back up your position.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by kdf5

And once again you produce pages of shuck and jive without the slightest hint of any rule reference to back up your position.

[ I've cited the rule that says he's OB if he's "touching". Let's have yours. Rule ______.

There's my first rule citing. Let's see yours. By the way, rules are listed in the book with hyphens such as 9-6-1 and 6-3-1.


So how did he return? He "returned" when he left the ground and batted the ball. It doesn't matter where he is when he leaves the ground. . There's my third rule citing. Let's see yours.

Come on, I dare you, cite rules to back up your position.

Forgive me Kd5, but I've tried to avoid "show me yours and I'l show you mine" arguments" since about when I left 3rd grade, so I may be a little out of practice. I appreciate your coaching me about using hyphens, rather than periods, to list rule references. Old habits are hard to break and I'm really happy you were able to follow along despite this grand transgression.

My father advised me long ago, "Never argue with a fool" and when I've ignored that advise I've always regretted it.

One of the wonderful things about officiating is that, on the field, we get to do pretty much whatever we like, whenever we like. Of course the other side of that coin is that we are held totally responsible, and accountable, for everything we choose to do at an extremely high standard.

You get to choose to follow your logic, and I sincerely hope you never have to try and explain that choice on a field, and I get to follow what I see as rationaland logical and have no worry, whatsoever, about explaining or justifying my choice.

Citing rules is always important and good practice, because it provides opportunity to constantly refresh our knowledge base, but understanding the rule, it's meaning, it's function and it's purpose may even be more important than memorizing the words. I'd reference the same rules you have, the only difference being I look a little deeper than the exact sequence of words and am guided by common sense as to how they should be applied.

You might try opening your mind and thinking about why what you read may have been written. That's something they may not cover until 4th grade, so be ready for and good luck with it.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Forgive me Kd5, but I've tried to avoid "show me yours and I'l show you mine" arguments" since about when I left 3rd grade, so I may be a little out of practice.

Not true.

You get to choose to follow your logic, and I sincerely hope you never have to try and explain that choice on a field, and I get to follow what I see as rationaland logical and have no worry, whatsoever, about explaining or justifying my choice.

I've explained my logic using rules, specifically 2-29-1, 2-30 and 9-6-1. You've again failed to cite ANY rules to back up your argument. All you've stated is that "our interpretation of what we perceive defies, common sense, logic and reality" yet it's walt and me who've cited concrete, specific rules and you haven't. I'm not sure who's going to have a tougher time here. I'm going to pull out the rule book and point to these rules. What are you going to do, say "What possible difference could it make whether that player is still touching the ground or jumping above it when he touches the ball"?

Citing rules is always important and good practice, because it provides opportunity to constantly refresh our knowledge base, but understanding the rule, it's meaning, it's function and it's purpose may even be more important than memorizing the words. I'd reference the same rules you have, the only difference being I look a little deeper than the exact sequence of words and am guided by common sense as to how they should be applied.

That's the problem with you. You apply your own logic to rules that are written, as walt said, in black and white, plus it's me who's cited rules, not you.

You might try opening your mind and thinking about why what you read may have been written. That's something they may not cover until 4th grade, so be ready for and good luck with it.

So if you aren't trying to show me yours, why the put downs and references to grade school? I've opened my mind. I take the word "touching" to mean that he is in the process of being directly in contact with the ground. What more can be applied or what more common sense can be used to interpret the word "touching"? If he's touching then he's out of bounds and by opening up my mind I glean from it that if he's not touching then he must be inbounds. If he's standing at the 50 on the logo and jumps in the air he's inbounds. Not that tough. Please cite the exact rule that says a player, once he steps out of bounds, stays out of bounds no matter what he does after that. I've cited the rule that says he's inbounds if he's not out of bounds. Let's have yours.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by kdf5

Not true.


I've explained my logic using rules, specifically 2-29-1, 2-30 and 9-6-1. You've again failed to cite ANY rules to back up your argument. All you've stated is that "our interpretation of what we perceive defies, common sense, logic and reality" yet it's walt and me who've cited concrete, specific rules and you haven't.
Please cite the exact rule that says a player, once he steps out of bounds, stays out of bounds no matter what he does after that. I've cited the rule that says he's inbounds if he's not out of bounds. Let's have yours.

I'll give it one more shot, Kdf5. I would cite the same NF: 2.29.1 and NF: 9.6.1 to support my assessments. I don't have a problem with the language of either rule to support a logical and rational interpretation. My problem is that I believe your insistance on focusing on your restricted and limiting interpretation of "touching" is simply ridiculous and makes no sense.

You seem bound and determined to insist on a new definition of "inbounds", that I suspect the rules makers would think totally unnecessary given the current definition, and understanding, of OOB. NF:2.29.1 clearly states a player is OOB is touching anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside the sideline or end line".

The rule does NOT say, suggest or infer anything remotely along the line that once OOB, to remain OOB, requires constant touching to the ground. Probably because such a statement would be insulting the intelligence of anyone reading the rule.

Similarly, NF:9.6.1. states "no player shall go OOB and return during the down unless blocked OOB by an opponent". How you conjur up that after being OOB, jumping up in the air (while still OOB) somehow equates to actually returning inbounds is simply beyond my comprehension. The rule you are so adamant about citing, says nothing to support your conclusion.

Neither you, nor Walt, have cited a single example supporting your theory that makes any common sense or logic. You are both hung up on the tense of a single word that you have decided is limiting to the extent it renders the entire rule as foolish.

You are free to, "take the word "touching" to mean that he is in the process of being directly in contact with the ground", but expanding it to infer that any subsequent detachment from the ground somehow reverses the status of being OOB and automatically restores the player's status to be inbounds is just silly.

When you suggest, "If he's touching then he's out of bounds and by opening up my mind I glean from it that if he's not touching then he must be inbounds, my only advice would be to reboot your mind and open it again. Perhaps my reference to grade school is a byproduct of all my "shucking and jiving".

[kdf5]

2-29-1...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.

Since the NF hasn't defined inbounds but has defined out of bounds then there's no other conclusion but to say he's in if he's not out. What other status could he have? Again, I ask you to cite a rule backing up your conclusions and the fact is, you can't. Why is it that my literal use of the word touching is wrong but your contentions are accurate? Give me rules to back up your contentions.

You said: "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." Please cite for me the rule that says once he renders himself out of bounds he stays out of bounds even though he's not touching. You can't. All you have to go on is YOUR interpretation. I have the rule.

You also said "Trying to apply Illegal Participation to a situation like this seems way too harsh". Well let's say A83 steps on the sideline, jumps in the air, bats the ball and A87 takes it to the house. If you don't flag this then who's received the harsh treatment? Or turn it around. B intercepts and takes it in and you call it an incomplete pass. Now who's paid the price. I've got rules to justify my IP flag and take away the score or let the score stand. You've ignored the rule and applied your own rule. All you have is your interpretation yet I'm wrong and you're right? Time and time again I've backed up my position with the rule book and time and time again you've not posted one rule to back up yours. The beauty of the rule is that it doesn't require your interpretation so why do you insist on interpreting it?