Reddings guide illegal participation

[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?

[parepat]

Come on now fellas lets think about this. Now lets assume that rather than being just out of bounds (OOB), the player goes and sits in the stands, the bandshall, on the track or down by the goal line. The QB launches the ball to the OOB player wherever he may be. At the perfect moment the OOB player jumps up and bats the ball to his player who takes it in for a score. Ridiculous? Yes? Legal? Call it how you want. I have a whistle and an incomplete pass.

This is the problem with a code based on an all inclusive set of rules. Rulemakers that try to cover everything in a code find that it is not possible. The limitations in our language and multiple interepretations make it impossible. Thus gaps remain. Efforts to fill the gaps often create more problems. We have seen this recently with the new rules carrying penalties to the kickoff (and the resulting problems when the score occured on the last timed down of a half). In the American judicial system the "gaps" are filled in by "the common law". The common law employs ideas of morality and common sense. Sounds like this is a gap.

[kdf5]

But we aren't talking about a player in the stands. We are talking about one who's stepped on the sideline then batted a pass out of the air. Remember, Reddings (if we can use them as an arbiter) says the ball stays live after he leaps in the air and catches it (a) or bats it in (b). My disagreement is that he should be flagged in both plays, not just (a).

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by kdf5

[I]

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?

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.

[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?

[waltjp]

Al, you conveniently ignored rule 2-4, the definition of a catch, which states that a catch is completed when player gains possession of the ball and first touches inbounds. Nowhere does it say that the player must have first established his position inbounds.

[kfo9494]

I happen to see the logic with AJMC statements.
You have someone that runs OOB and then stands there and jumps up and down. So his status changes each time he leaps into the air?
Even though the rule says that this is correct, this defies logic.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Al, you conveniently ignored rule 2-4, the definition of a catch, which states that a catch is completed when player gains possession of the ball and first touches inbounds. Nowhere does it say that the player must have first established his position inbounds.

What is it with you guys? Why all the focus on what rules DON'T SAY?

Why must it be necessary for any rule to specifically mention something that is painfully obvious should never happen? The rules don't prohibit snipers shooting balls out of the air, but it's not likely any competent official would be confused about what to do if that happened.

Are you suggesting the rules actually need to specify that someone is prohibited from leaping on to the field from OOB, so we know that wouldn't be "a catch"? The proper application of ANY rule is dependent on the common sense and judgment of the person given the authority to enforce it.

Both you and Kdf5 are trying hard to make a silk purse out of a sows ear, and it just can't be done. Your basic premise, is fatally flawed, because it makes no sense, serves no purpose. You can try and twist it, turn it, quote 65 other rules to try and mask it, paint it, dress it up or cover it up with perfume and it still just won't make any sense nor have any purpose. You're just wrong, accept that and move on.

Football rules are not designed, or intended, to have secret or hidden meanings, although sometimes they inadvertently create some. Do yourselves a favor and stop wasting your time and effort seeking obscure loopholes and hidden landmines. No rules code will ever cover every possibility, that's why common sense and logic in applying them is so important.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by ajmc

What is it with you guys? Why all the focus on what rules DON'T SAY?

Why must it be necessary for any rule to specifically mention something that is painfully obvious should never happen? The rules don't prohibit snipers shooting balls out of the air, but it's not likely any competent official would be confused about what to do if that happened.

Are you suggesting the rules actually need to specify that someone is prohibited from leaping on to the field from OOB, so we know that wouldn't be "a catch"? The proper application of ANY rule is dependent on the common sense and judgment of the person given the authority to enforce it.

Both you and Kdf5 are trying hard to make a silk purse out of a sows ear, and it just can't be done. Your basic premise, is fatally flawed, because it makes no sense, serves no purpose. You can try and twist it, turn it, quote 65 other rules to try and mask it, paint it, dress it up or cover it up with perfume and it still just won't make any sense nor have any purpose. You're just wrong, accept that and move on.

Football rules are not designed, or intended, to have secret or hidden meanings, although sometimes they inadvertently create some. Do yourselves a favor and stop wasting your time and effort seeking obscure loopholes and hidden landmines. No rules code will ever cover every possibility, that's why common sense and logic in applying them is so important.

So I guess that's a no on your rule references.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by ajmc

What is it with you guys? Why all the focus on what rules DON'T SAY?

Because it's not my job to invent rules to my liking. If the rules don't specifically prohibit something it's legal.

For reference you might want to check the discussions about a certain offensive scheme. A lot of people didn't like it for various reasons but conceded that it was legal under the current rules.

btw - the sniper scenario is just plain lunacy.

[kfo9494]

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?

To me you are making a mound out of a mole hill. So the reciever leaps, big deal, what if he had not leaped?
I assume you are trying to say that the reciever leaping stopped B from a int. Well if the same play had happened and the reciever did not leap then it still stopped B from an INT.
I am not saying you are incorrect, I am just saying there are ways to stop the INT without the leap. IMO-(not supported by rule) this is confusing.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by kfo9494

To me you are making a mound out of a mole hill. So the reciever leaps, big deal, what if he had not leaped?
I assume you are trying to say that the reciever leaping stopped B from a int. Well if the same play had happened and the reciever did not leap then it still stopped B from an INT.
I am not saying you are incorrect, I am just saying there are ways to stop the INT without the leap. IMO-(not supported by rule) this is confusing.

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. I've said before that if I have to rule on this situation in a "game management" manner, I'd probably just go with an incomplete. But we are in a rules debate here, and "feelings" that are contrary to what is clearly stated in the rule book don't amount to much.
For example, it appears the majority (which in fact may include myself in "real life") thinks it should be called incomplete. But consider the possibility of an A who is blocked out of bounds. He is allowed to immediately return and suffer no penalty. But say his return is done by leaping from OOB to in bounds to catch the ball and then land in bounds. Do you have an incomplete pass because he was OOB by the stated reasoning and never re-established himself in bounds until after the catch? Because it seems some are trying to say here he is OOB and therefor as soon as he touches it the ball is dead. Or does his OOB status change depending on where he lands? Where in the rules does it state his status changes (other than the possibility of an IP) between intentionally going OOB and being blocked OOB?

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by Mike L

But consider the possibility of an A who is blocked out of bounds. He is allowed to immediately return and suffer no penalty. But say his return is done by leaping from OOB to in bounds to catch the ball and then land in bounds.

Do you have an incomplete pass because he was OOB by the stated reasoning and never re-established himself in bounds until after the catch? Because it seems some are trying to say here he is OOB and therefor as soon as he touches it the ball is dead.

Or does his OOB status change depending on where he lands? Where in the rules does it state his status changes (other than the possibility of an IP) between intentionally going OOB and being blocked OOB?

1) A1 goes out unforced by B and grabs the pass and:
a) returns first touching out of bounds:
Ruling -
i) Ball is dead
ii) No penalty

b) returns to ground in bounds
Ruling -
i) Ball remains alive
ii) Penalty for IP (for returning inbounds)

2) A1 is forced out of bounds by B and grabs the pass and:
a) returns to ground out of bounds
Ruling -
i) Ball is dead
ii) No penalty

b) returns to ground in bounds
Ruling -
i) Ball remains alive
ii) No penalty

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

1) A1 goes out unforced by B and grabs the pass and:
a) returns first touching out of bounds:
Ruling -
i) Ball is dead
ii) No penalty

b) returns to ground in bounds
Ruling -
i) Ball remains alive
ii) Penalty for IP (for returning inbounds)

2) A1 is forced out of bounds by B and grabs the pass and:
a) returns to ground out of bounds
Ruling -
i) Ball is dead
ii) No penalty

b) returns to ground in bounds
Ruling -
i) Ball remains alive
ii) No penalty

what if in your examples instead of grabbing (or what I think should be called "catching") he merely bats the ball? Does it still matter where he lands?

[gd191]

Guys, Jim D's succinct interpretation is spot on. The key here is A went OOB on his own accord. He cannot renenter the game legally. I don't wish to rehash this thread as anyone following it knows whats what. Very interesting debate and interpretation. IF any of you disagree with Jim's interpretation I suggest you write a letter to the NFHS rules committee. I bet they interpret this just as Jim has. Happy officiating!