Reddings guide illegal participation

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by kdf5

So if you're "open to being persuaded" then why is it that a "founding member of the Colorado Collegiate Football Officials Assoc. and President of the Colorado Football Officials Assoc." and who's authored a respected guide to the NF rules "makes absolutely no sense"? It seems to me that you're not open to being persuaded at all and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, period, and only because you say so.

Why are you getting frustrated and angry? You raised a point and asked a question and I've tried to explain my position as best I can. I'm not telling you you're wrong, I'm telling you I don't understand how your position can be right. If you're smart enough to convince me that your position makes sense, I'll certainly reconsider, but thus far you haven't even come close.

With all due respect to the, ""founding member of the Colorado Collegiate Football Officials Assoc. and President of the Colorado Football Officials Assoc." (and) who's authored a respected guide to the NF rules", suggesting that, ""the receiver was not out of bounds when he touched the ball since he was airborne", just doesn't light any lights for me. I didn't say you. or he, was wrong, I just don't see how that position could possibly be right and nothing you've offered thus far has been at all persuasive or convincing.

If you're ever confronted with this situation you can do what you think is right, and hope nobody asks you to explain why.

[jaybird]

If you're ever confronted with this situation you can do what you think is right, and hope nobody asks you to explain why.

Why? What would be so difficult in saying, "Coach, by rule there is no foul because by definition the player was not OOB"? Enough said. Next play.
... and all it took was one sentence, not six paragraphs!

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by jaybird

If you're ever confronted with this situation you can do what you think is right, and hope nobody asks you to explain why.

Why? What would be so difficult in saying, "Coach, by rule there is no foul because by definition the player was not OOB"? Enough said. Next play.
... and all it took was one sentence, not six paragraphs!

Knock yourself out Jaybird. If you're comfortable with that response, and can get away with it, that may be all you will ever need. It's when the questioner responds, "but we both saw him step on/over the side line before he touched the ball", that your explanation may get interesting, but I'm sure you'll be prepared to handle it with equal brevity.

Good luck.

[ref1986]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Knock yourself out Jaybird. If you're comfortable with that response, and can get away with it, that may be all you will ever need. It's when the questioner responds, "but we both saw him step on/over the side line before he touched the ball", that your explanation may get interesting, but I'm sure you'll be prepared to handle it with equal brevity.

Good luck.

"Yoy are correct, Coach, his feet were out of bounds. But as soon as he left his feet, by rule he was no longer out of bounds." End of discussion.

Kind of like:

"How can you call that a completed pass? He never got a foot down."

"Coach, your player pushed him out of bounds while he was in the air inside the sideline. By rule, that's a completed pass." End of discussion.

Jaybird and I aren't giving rules clinics on the field.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by ajmc

If you're ever confronted with this situation you can do what you think is right, and hope nobody asks you to explain why.

See, there you go again. "hope nobody asks you to explain why". I think I'll be able to explain it a lot easier than you will. But like you said, it's probably never going to happen, you hope.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by kdf5

See, there you go again. "hope nobody asks you to explain why". I think I'll be able to explain it a lot easier than you will. But like you said, it's probably never going to happen, you hope.

I don't know, Kdf5 offering,"When a ball touches anything OOB it's dead, and he clearly went OOB before he touched it", doesn't seem to leave a lot of room for additional discussion.

If there should be a follow comment about, "Wait a minute, doesn't the rule say touching.....", I'll rely on a response of, "That doesn't make any sense and is ridiculous" to end the conversation. That is, if it ever happens.

[KWH]

AJMC-
Consider this.
If you are a rule book guy, you almost certainly would have to agree that by definition (Rule 2-29) the player was NOT Out of Bounds. With all due respect, you continue to reach and search for a definition of an in bounds player however, unfortunatly, none exsists.
Additionally, you have formed a conclusion that if a player is not out of bounds he MUST then be in-bounds. Unfortunatly, as much as you want it to be, your conclusion is not the conclusion of and is in direct conflict with the current NFHS Rules Book.

And by the way, just because you "don the stripes" does not by any strech of the imagination mean you are: "empowered to rule as you think you should" as you have stated, rather, you are required to rule by the rule book.

Last but not least, for you to suggest Roger's and Georges ruling in the Redding Guide 'makes no sense" is silly. This play/action has been around for years, and the ruling is always the same and for the same reason. It is still referred to as Rule 2-29!

If you don't like the ruling, (which is abundantly apparrent) there is a process, draft a rule change proposal, (make sure dot all your i's and cross all your t's) and submit it to your state association for possible consideration by the NFHS committee next January. The NFHS is a grass-roots organization and you are most certainly empowered to submit any change proposal you like, but it must be signed off by your state.

-Kevin

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by KWH

AJMC-
Consider this.
If you are a rule book guy, you almost certainly would have to agree that by definition (Rule 2-29) the player was NOT Out of Bounds. With all due respect, you continue to reach and search for a definition of an in bounds player however, unfortunatly, none exsists.

-Kevin

Kevin,

I wasn't going to post on this subject again, but I do have to disagree that "by definition, the player was not out of bounds".

The rule book does not give us the status of a player who is up in the air. It doesn't tell us if he's out-of-bounds, not out-of-bounds, in-bounds or neither-in-nor-out. If it did, we wouldn't be having this endless discussion. Based on a careful reading of the rules, we've come to various conclusions - all subject to our own interpretations. Everyone has made some excellent points, and I feel bad going against Reddings, but I'm comfortable with my interpretation (OOB, dead ball). You can keep yours (legal play) and others can keep IP if they want.

[KWH]

Jim D-

Hey Jim, please don't misunderstand, I don't like this any more than you do!

That being said:

The rule book most certainly and unequivocally tells us he is not out-of-bounds!
Rule 2-29-2 states: A player...is out of bounds when any part of the person is touching anything...that is on or outside the sideline or endline.

Therefore, until such time as you can get the federation to replace the wording "...is touching anything..." with ...has touched anything and has yet to return inbounds..." your interpretation (as much as you don't want it to be) remains incorrect.

Like it or not, based on the most currect rule book, Rogers Redding and George Demetrieau interpretation is correct!!!

Nuff said

-Kevin

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by KWH

[B]
The NFHS is a grass-roots organization and you are most certainly empowered to submit any change proposal you like, but it must be signed off by your state.

-Kevin

Although Jim D has subsequently corrected your mistatements above, the smugness of you conclusions, seems worthy of a response. For the record, I absolutely disagree with your assessment that the language of 2.29 refutes my primary contention. Although I agree 2.29 could be rewritten to be more specific, and perhaps inclusive, I do not find it's meaning at all difficult to include the simple notion that once a player goes OOB, he is OOB until he subsequently becomes In-bounds.

Long ago, I reached a general conclusion that all of the rules of football each have some purpose, some objective, some reason related to the fair and equitable playing of the game. Unfortunately, some rules are not written as consicely or clearly as they might have been, but I am convinced there is logic, reason and purpose for every rule.

At times, not nearly enough for some, rules are subject to modification and further explanation, but I do not believe the intent of any rule is to be needlessly silly or counterproductive nor our rules makers deliberately try and confuse or mislead interested parties.

I do believe the rule makers value the judgment, common sense and the understanding of fair play and the intent of the game field officials employ to enforce each rule as it was intended. Although I've repeatedly asked for some evidence of ANY logical purpose, ANY hint of common or practical sense, or ANY rational reason to explain why a player who has already gone OOB, could somehow retain, or temprarily regain, an In-bounds status by simply jumping up into the air, none has been offered.

I understand the logic and rational of why a player is considered "different" when he goes OOB, because it's simple, logical and makes perfect sense in relation to the flow of the game. The game of football is not rocket science, not the difference between guilt or innocense in a capitol trial nor is it intended to be.

Each rule must have a purpose, an objective, that makes sense to the operation of the game. My limited comprehension ability fails to uncover any possible purpose, any rational objective, any logic, any contribution to the flow of the game that your interpretation, of this rather simple rule, would provide.

As I've previously suggested, reasonably politely, as officials we ARE absolutely empowered to make rulings as we believe they are intended to be made, and we are fully accountable for all decisions we render. If you are comfortable rendering a decision you are not capable of explaining in terms of basic common sense and logic, rather than reason the purpose of the rule because of an obscure interpretation that defies common sense and logic, that's on you.

As stated previously, if you can offer some additional purpose, reason, objective or benefit to the flow of the game that your interpretation offers, I'll be willing to reconsider my position.

[KWH]

AJMC & Jim D -

I suggest you present this particular play to your respective State Rules Interpreters. In fairness, I suggest you present them with both the AJMC/JIMD interpretation along with the Rogers Redding/George Demetriou iterpretation.

Then provide us all with your SRI's individual interpretations.

The results should make for some interesting forum reading.

[Jim D.]

Thanks for the suggestion, but I probably won't bother them. This has been more of an "it's April and there isn't much else to discuss right now on the board" arguments. I've worked a long time, and I've never seen or heard of this play happing in a game, and I don't expect to in the future. If it does happen, I'm comfortable with calling it incomplete.

I've seen the arguments for several possible calls, and all are well thought out, equally plausible and equally justified. I honestly don't think there is a "right" answer to this under the rules as they are currently written.

[KWH]

AJMC-
I have two "resonable polite" questions for you:
1) I am wondering if you as of yet have "empowered yourself" with the opportunity to discuss this play your State Rules Interpreter and thus garner your states official interpretation to determine if it refutes or supports your assesment in regards to what you have claimed an "obscure interpretation" which defies common sense, logic, reason, good judgment and understanding of fair play, even though the interpretation was made by Rogers Redding - Chair of the NCAA Rules Committee?

2) In the extremely remote chance your state SRI should support Rogers Interpretation, will you retain your belief you are "empowered to make rulings as your believe they are intended to be made" even when they directly conflict with your SRI albiet all in the name of Truth, Justice, and the American Way?

Please be advised even with my limited comprehension my primary contention remains to garner a general conclusion absent of any smugness.

Please advise...


Knowledge is good! - Emil Faber

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I don't know, Kdf5 offering,"When a ball touches anything OOB it's dead, and he clearly went OOB before he touched it", doesn't seem to leave a lot of room for additional discussion.

The only additional discussion I would have with you is why not, like jaybird said, just follow the rule? It's their rule, not yours, so just blame the ruling on them and you're off the hook. The only thing that doesn't make any sense and is illogical is your insistence in making up your own ruling.