Reddings guide illegal participation

[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?

[Mike L]

But ajmc, I'm not asking for rules to cover every situation because I agree with you there are some things that we must rely on common sense since there is no rule reference to go to. Such as the helicopter and sniper stuff that's been thrown out but doesn't really apply because for this question there is a rule reference. It's in the definitions under Out of Bounds. The rule may be poorly worded, may lack some clarity or is difficient, but it is there.
It appears there is a problem here precisely because of the "force out exception" for A or K and the rules makers either haven't thought of the possibilities, or simply have yet to figure out how to go about addressing the problem. How can we rule A's status of being OOB changes depending on whether he went out intentionally or if he was blocked out?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Mike L

But ajmc, I'm not asking for rules to cover every situation because I agree with you there are some things that we must rely on common sense since there is no rule reference to go to. Such as the helicopter and sniper stuff that's been thrown out but doesn't really apply because for this question there is a rule reference. It's in the definitions under Out of Bounds. The rule may be poorly worded, may lack some clarity or is difficient, but it is there.
It appears there is a problem here precisely because of the "force out exception" for A or K and the rules makers either haven't thought of the possibilities, or simply have yet to figure out how to go about addressing the problem. How can we rule A's status of being OOB changes depending on whether he went out intentionally or if he was blocked out?

I was with you there, for a moment Mike, but then you lost me. I have trouble with questions when they start mixing up. I don't know why you think the OOB's rule is "poorly worded", I'm sure well over 99% understand what it means and act accordingly. The problem seems to have been created by an obsession with the meaning of the word "touching" and taking it way beyond where it was ever likely to lead.

I admit I can't tell you, "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" any more than I can guarantee explaining the next several example that have yet to be made up, and will likely never (ever) happen.

I'm going to stick with my understanding that the rule makers want us to ignore just about anything a player may do, if he was somehow forced by an opponent into doing it. As for those "just about" exceptions, I'm willing to wait until I'm presented with one and let my judgment be guided by the situation and what makes sense regarding that situation.

Let me give you a question; On a field where a sideline is marked poorly, and there is an obvious bow in a section of the line. Is a player OOB when he steps on this obviously inaccurate line, or would he be OOB when he steps where the line should be?

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by Mike L

what if in your #2 instead of grabbing (or what I think should be called "catching") he merely bats the ball? Does it still matter where he lands?

Yes, this is like Schroedinger's cat, the status of the ball is undetermined until A1 returns to the ground.

If he is forced out and leaps and touches the ball, it is:
Live if he returns to the ground inbounds.
Dead if he returns to the ground out-of -bounds.

[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!

[KWH]

This was a very good thread. Hopefully it will develop into a Rule change proposal for consideration by the NFHS Football Committee in January of 2010.
JimD, BobM and others have provided some positive comments and sound reasoning for the committee to consider closing this loophole.
However, that being said, until such time as the Committee changes the current rule This play is legal and the interpretation in the Redding Guide IS correct! Under the current NFHS Rules this player is NOT (by rule) out of bounds. Additionally, for an official to manufacture an interpretation other than the current Redding Interpretation would be erroniuos and would NOT be supported by rule.

Many comments on this and another forums thread's have used words like untenable, illogical, sensible, common sense, spirit of the rules, gut feel, ect. These are all great words and thoughts however, the one problem is again, currently, there is no rule support for a ruling in this situation other than "Legal Play!"

Do I like it? NO!
Do I support it? YES! Of course, this play has rule book support and therefore it has to be legal!
To present a proposal for consideration to close this loophole (as long as it is well thought and would not cause any unintended circumstances) likely would be good for the game. To fabricate ones own ruling on this (or any other) situation would be foolhardy and a bit askew! Actions such as this by officials can NEVER be in the best interest of the game.

Rule references for this situation would include: 2-4-1, 2-29-1, 2 & 3, 7-5-5, 9-6-1 & 2!
And,
Again, since the action, did NOT violate any of the rules listed above, the play is currently, by rule, "Legal!"

We are required to officiate the rules by the rulebook. Someone suggested implementing 1-1-6. Unfortunatly, this would be an incorrect application of 1-1-6. Why? Simply because 1-1-6 is for utilization when a situation occurs that is not specifically covered in the rules. Like it or not, and as unfortunate as it may be, this situation IS specifically covered by the current rules as, the player, (by definition) is NOT (as much as we want him to be) out of bounds.