Reddings guide illegal participation

[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?

[Welpe]

I think we ned to bring in the Bob M. interpretation on the matter.

I do not personally see how the Rule 2 definition of being out of bounds can be interpreted in any matter other than by black letter of the rule. I have yet to see a rule or authoritative interpretation stating that a player retains his position once he leaves the ground. I am not trying to be contrary but if there is one, please share it with us.

[ljudge]

Walt - I think I'm going to buy you about 10 beers at the Liberty Bell clinic and when you got a good "buzz" going I'm going to ask you about this thread and watch your reaction.

And, if I knew the other two guys I'd buy them 10 too. It would be worth the price of admission to watch three "buzzed" guys arguing this.

Cheers!

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by ljudge

Walt - I think I'm going to buy you about 10 beers at the Liberty Bell clinic and when you got a good "buzz" going I'm going to ask you about this thread and watch your reaction.

And, if I knew the other two guys I'd buy them 10 too. It would be worth the price of admission to watch three "buzzed" guys arguing this.

Cheers!

Before, during or after the clinic?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I think we ned to bring in the Bob M. interpretation on the matter.

I do not personally see how the Rule 2 definition of being out of bounds can be interpreted in any matter other than by black letter of the rule. I have yet to see a rule or authoritative interpretation stating that a player retains his position once he leaves the ground. I am not trying to be contrary but if there is one, please share it with us.

I think you'll find it right after the "authoritive interpretation" stating that a player loses or changes his position once he leaves the ground.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I think you'll find it right after the "authoritive interpretation" stating that a player loses or changes his position once he leaves the ground.

I take it then you don't agree with the Redding Guide and the letter of the rule?

[Welpe]

The first post in this thread contains the Redding play and interpretation that supports this.

As far as the actual wording of the rule is concerned, I don't know how "touching" can be any simpler and imply anything than the present tense of the verb.

With all due respect, it appears you are trying to make the rules fit your interpretation.

In regard to the "intent" that you mention in your previous post, you're not alluding to the spirit of the rule are you?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Welpe

The first post in this thread contains the Redding play and interpretation that supports this.

As far as the actual wording of the rule is concerned, I don't know how "touching" can be any simpler and imply anything than the present tense of the verb.

With all due respect, it appears you are trying to make the rules fit your interpretation.

In regard to the "intent" that you mention in your previous post, you're not alluding to the spirit of the rule are you?

I didn't realize the initial description was an exact quote. If it is, I don't understand how that conclusion could be correct.

The only thing I'm trying to match my interpretation to is basic common sense and my understanding of the object of this rule.

As for the selection of the present tense of a verb, I have no problem with it's usage, but I don't believe it includes, or implies, any requirement that the touching must be continuous to maintain the status, which the touching OOB creates, simply because that doesn't make any sense and seems unnecessary.

As for the "spirit of the rule", that's something you'd have to ask the rule makers to explain, to be sure of. I don't have access to them, so I'll have to stick with my own assessment of common sense and logic, although I can't seem to grasp any rational purpose or reason to include such a meaningless requirement.

Perhaps you see some purpose, objective, logic or reason, that makes some semblence of sense, that I don't and would be kind enough to share it with me.