Reddings guide illegal participation

[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?

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

Or an obsession with conjuring up a meaning to a word that has a definition. Any luck finding a rule to support your position?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by kdf5

Or an obsession with conjuring up a meaning to a word that has a definition. Any luck finding a rule to support your position?

I don't want to embarrass you Kdf5, but as I've tried patiently to suggest to you, that your ridiculous interpretation, and limitation of what "touching" represents is not spelled out or supported by rule either, except as how you are choosing to interpret it.

Don't be childish and try and sound smart by repeating the same question, which we both know cannot be aswered as you are asking.

In the absence of direct and specific supporting language to specifically address either point, I'm satisfied to rely on common sense and logic, what are you relying on?

[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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by 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.

I won't argue with any of your suppositions, except that your conclusion still requires acceptance of an interpretation that, in my judgment, makes absolutely no sense and has no logical reason. In the rare circumstance that a player, who has rendered himself OOB, jumps in the air while OOB to touch a live ball, I'm going to consider the ball dead the instance he touches it.

I'm not disregarding any ruling, I'm simply enforcing a ruling that I believe is implied by existing rules and disagreeing with your conclusions. I am perfectly willing to accept any consequences that result from applying basic common sense and logic to interpret a rule that does not specifically address such an odd ( and specific) circumstance.

I just don't believe we're out there to enforce anything we agree isn't right, just because someone has suggested, "it says so". Sorry, may be willing to sell my soul, but not for something as trivial as this.

[jaybird]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I won't argue with any of your suppositions, except that your conclusion still requires acceptance of an interpretation that, in my judgment, makes absolutely no sense and has no logical reason. In the rare circumstance that a player, who has rendered himself OOB, jumps in the air while OOB to touch a live ball, I'm going to consider the ball dead the instance he touches it.

I'm not disregarding any ruling, I'm simply enforcing a ruling that I believe is implied by existing rules and disagreeing with your conclusions. I am perfectly willing to accept any consequences that result from applying basic common sense and logic to interpret a rule that does not specifically address such an odd ( and specific) circumstance.

I just don't believe we're out there to enforce anything we agree isn't right, just because someone has suggested, "it says so". Sorry, may be willing to sell my soul, but not for something as trivial as this.

Just won't give up, will ya?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by jaybird

Just won't give up, will ya?

It's not about giving up, or not giving up. I'm open to being persuaded that your assessment makes sense, just explain why it does, with something more than "because I said so", or that you or someone else thinks it says so.

With all due respect to the Redding people, "the receiver was not out of bounds when he touched the ball since he was airborne", just seems ridiculous to me and defies common sense, logic and the notion of rationality in the construction and purpose of any rule.

Don't get yourself all worked up about it, the chances of this actually happening are remote, but if they should repeat, we're both empowered to rule as we think we should. Either way, someone might just ask for an explanation. I'm comfortable in explaining my conclusion.

[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.