Reddings guide illegal participation

[ajmc]

[QUOTE=Mike L;595154]I'm not making a mountain out of anything. And I find there is an unfortunate feeling that anytime someone takes an opposite position to someone's post that it's either accusatory or insulting. I'm just trying to get someone to justify their answers by the rules for what they've posted and doing it by giving other examples of how the same "ruling" applies to a possible variety of situations. So far, all we've received is what some "think" is logical, but no real rule reference to justify the position. QUOTE]

A valid point, Mike. The reality is, fortunately or unfortunately, that there will never be rules that cover every possibility, and the only thing to guide through those situations is common sense, an understanding of the objectives of the game and it's rules and logic.

A lot of judgments we, as officials make are based on interpretations, some of which have been clearly codified and many that have not. It's likely that we can always conjure up an isolated example that will make just about any interpretation seem fuzzy. Officiating has never been, nor likely will ever be, an absolute science.

Sometimes theories or concepts that apply perfectly to other rules make sense when applied to different circumstances, othertimes not. Whatever ruling we are going to make should, however, make sense even though it can be disagreed with.

In the example you raise, basically the rule suggests that when a player is "forced" OOB, we should ignore the fact he's OOB. That seems to line up with the concept of contact by a player being blocked, or otherwise forced into what would normally be considered illegal or improper contact with an opponent or the ball, to simply be ignored.

You can "What if" these situations to death, but the basic approach seems clearly to be when something is "forced" treat it like it never happened. That seems to make sense, can consistently be applied, but I'm sure there are examples where it doesn't provide the perfect solution. Unless you want a 5,000 page rule book listing every conceivable exception and possibility, some decisions will remain pure judgment and comon sense, and nobody will ever bat 1.000.

Sometimes we can lose sight of the fact that we're talking about rules of a GAME, albeit a great game, an important game, but just a game. The problem is not that neither the rules, nor those of us who enforce them aren't perfect, the problem is that some delude themselves into thinking that perfection is attainable and therefore expected.

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Well then, what do you do if said OOB receiver leaps near the sideline and swats the ball away from an inbounds B who is about to intercept the ball? You still have an A who has gone OOB, he still has merely leaped and not returned, so must still be OOB per your "ruling" and therefore all you have is an incomplete even if it prevents a B from catching the ball. Or does the reasoning change according to how the play works out and by what rule do you justify a changing ruling depending on the outcome of the play?

I don't think he'd he changing a rule -

A is running down the sideline and steps out of bounds. The ball comes his way and, seeing B may intercept, A swats the ball away. He is out of bounds when he does this and may or may not realize it. He doesn't jump and he doesn't return in-bounds. All you have is an incomplete pass. There is no IP or anything else - the ball touched an out-of-bounds player and it's dead. If he jumped in the air as he did this, there would be no difference. It's just an incomplete pass.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by ajmc

You are perfectly free to do what you think is correct, Kdf5, regardless of what I suggest, understanding that you will have to accept whatever consequences your interpretation brings. I'm willing to accept and deal with whatever consequences my interpretation may bring.

However, all your repeating that "the rules" support your interpretation is absolute and utter nonsense. There is no rule that addresses how, what or why a player who goes OOB remains OOB, which cuts both ways so there is no specific language supporting your contention either.

You are entitled to your interpretation of what limitations use of the word "touching" entails, and I simply do not agree, or accept, your litteral interpretation, which I am fully entitled to do.

I've learned, over a relatively long period of time, when there is no specific reference to some unique situation, applying common sense and basic logic is a much more practical approach to finding a workable solution than trying to force some obscure explanation, that cannot be logically and plainly defined.

You do as you choose, and I'll follow my instincts, but stop deluding yourself that your position is directly supported by rule. It is not, not even close.

Any luck with those rules?

[Jim D.]

One point in this discussion I think needs clarification -

If A 1 is running down the sideline and steps out of bounds and then catches the ball or bats it away from inbounds B1, that touching is not IP. See 9.6.3 - A1 is not a "replaced player, substitute, etc. He retains his status as a player (2-32-1). He can catch or bat the ball (both actions would cause the ball to become dead) but are legal moves. His "interference" in the play is not illegal participation. The only way A1 can be guilty of IP is if he returns inbounds.

[kfo9494]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

One point in this discussion I think needs clarification -

If A 1 is running down the sideline and steps out of bounds and then catches the ball or bats it away from inbounds B1, that touching is not IP. See 9.6.3 - A1 is not a "replaced player, substitute, etc. He retains his status as a player (2-32-1). He can catch or bat the ball (both actions would cause the ball to become dead) but are legal moves. His "interference" in the play is not illegal participation. The only way A1 can be guilty of IP is if he returns inbounds.

Jim, I may be completely confused. But from what I have read on this thread (and I maybe wrong) is some are saying that if A goes out of bounds and then leaps up and bats the ball-then he is to be considered in-bounds.
I mean he either has to be OOB or IB.
So by his status being IB he has returned.
Or am I making this way way too hard.

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by kfo9494

Jim, I may be completely confused. But from what I have read on this thread (and I maybe wrong) is some are saying that if A goes out of bounds and then leaps up and bats the ball-then he is to be considered in-bounds.
I mean he either has to be OOB or IB.
So by his status being IB he has returned.
Or am I making this way way too hard.

No, you're reading it right. I just happen to disagree with that interpretation. If A is out of bounds and he jumps in the air, I still think he's still out of bounds. To say otherwise is not supported by the rules, and it just seems silly. Imagine calling A for having too many players on the field because one or more subs jumped in the air. They myst be either in bounds or out of bounds and, if jumping up makes them in bounds, well that just seems too silly to fly.

In the case you presented, I say it's a dead ball because the pass touched an out of bounds player. There is no IP on this play, just an incomplete pass.