Reddings guide illegal participation

[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.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by waltjp

FED Case Book (2002)

9.6.1 Sit D

Wide receiver A1 runs a pass route along the sideline. He takes two steps out of bounds and goes airborne. While in the air he: (a) bats the ball to A2 who catches the ball; or (b) catches the ball and lands inbounds; or (c) catches the ball and lands out of bounds.

Ruling:

In (a) and (b), the ball remains live and the catch is legal. A1 was not out of bounds when he touched the pass, however, he is guilty of illegal participation in both (a) and (b). In (c), the ball is dead and there is no catch or foul. (2-4-1; 2-28; 4-3)

Originally posted by Walt in another thread. This CB play was also in the 2003 casebook and is the foundation for the Redding Guide play that started all of this.

[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...