Reddings guide illegal participation

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Rule 2-29 Out of Bounds

ART. 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.
ART.2 . . . A ball in player possession is out of bounds when the runner or the
ball touches anything, other than another player or game official that is on or out-
side a sideline or end line.
ART. 3 . . . A loose ball is out of bounds when it touches anything, including a
player or game official that is out of bounds.

Doesn't seem much room for interpretation here. A player who last touched the ground inbounds but is in the air above the sideline is inbounds.

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Doesn't seem much room for interpretation here. A player who last touched the ground inbounds but is in the air above the sideline is inbounds.

I agree on that. Howeve, the substance of the thread was the status of a person who is out of bounds (after having touched the ground out of bounds) and then jumps in the air while still wide of the sideline. Is he in, is he out or is he neither? There are plenty of arguements to review and consider in the six pages of responses.

[mbyron]

Ah. See your point.

Well, "you are where you were till you get where you're going." He's out until he's not, and being in the air isn't sufficient to change his status going either direction.

[KWH]

While many feel the need to belabor the point, the rule book remains silent on "inbounds" and as such, their is no definition of an inbounds player. However, there is a clear definition of when a player is out of bounds, and this definition is only applicable when such player ...IS TOUCHING ANYTHING.... (As per 2-28-1)
Some have formed a conclusion that a player must be inbounds if he is not out of bounds. This conclusion is incorrect. The player in the OP did not meet the definition of out of bounds as per 2-29-1. Therefore he is simply NOT out of bounds and nothing else.

[ppaltice]

I agree with KWH on this. The NF has a definition for out of bounds player, but no definition for inbounds player. For a player to be out of bounds, the rule states that the player must be touching something that is out of bounds (other than a player or an official). An airborne player cannot be out of bounds by this definition. Maybe he should, but that would be for the rules committee to decide, not us on an individual basis.

[jaybird]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Ah. See your point.

Well, "you are where you were till you get where you're going." He's out until he's not, and being in the air isn't sufficient to change his status going either direction.

That is correct.... for basketball! That statement would be in conflict with football rules though.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by jaybird

That is correct.... for basketball! That statement would be in conflict with football rules though.

That is one opinion on this subject. Another opinion is that no rule, of any sport, would intentionally or deliberately be in direct conflict with common sense, logic and the basic tone of the game.

[jaybird]

Originally Posted by ajmc

That is one opinion on this subject. Another opinion is that no rule, of any sport, would intentionally or deliberately be in direct conflict with common sense, logic and the basic tone of the game.

Alf,
The opinion, as you refer to it, is supported by the rule which states that a player is OOB when he is touching something which is OOB. Common sense, logic and the basic tone of the game (whatever the he!! that means) makes it easy to understand that when a player is airborne, he is not touching anything OOB and therefore by definition is not considered OOB. It's not rocket science, it's basic, easy to understand English that is supported by rule.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by jaybird

Alf,
The opinion, as you refer to it, is supported by the rule which states that a player is OOB when he is touching something which is OOB. Common sense, logic and the basic tone of the game (whatever the he!! that means) makes it easy to understand that when a player is airborne, he is not touching anything OOB and therefore by definition is not considered OOB. It's not rocket science, it's basic, easy to understand English that is supported by rule.

Sorry, but I don't agree that the rule (NF: 2-29-1) requires the contact, that caused a player to become OOB to be constant, and continuous, for that player to remain OOB. I understand and agree that an airborne player does not become OOB until he touches something (including the ground) OOB, but once he satisfyies that requirement and becomes OOB, his subsequent jumping up into the air is not going to change his status.

That's what I mean by logic, common sense and the basic tone of the game.

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by jaybird

Alf,
The opinion, as you refer to it, is supported by the rule which states that a player is OOB when he is touching something which is OOB. Common sense, logic and the basic tone of the game (whatever the he!! that means) makes it easy to understand that when a player is airborne, he is not touching anything OOB and therefore by definition is not considered OOB. It's not rocket science, it's basic, easy to understand English that is supported by rule.

Sorry, jaybird. I know this post has gone on way too long, but the whole issue is not supported by either rule or logic which is why we have this whole arguement.

If the player who jumps is not out of bounds (and I understand that logic since he's not touching anything out of bounds) the question remains, "what is he"? Here the rule is silent. Presumably, he's either inbounds (and guilty of IP) or he's in a state of not out-of-bounds or not in-bounds. The rule does not tell us which it is, and logic would seem to say he must be in if he ain't out so we have a flag. That's as valid an interpretation as any other I've seen. I don't think the rules makers ever envisioned an neither in nor out state so I can't see how this play could be legal.

You are welcome to your view and I'm fine with it, but the rule as written leaves it open to interpretaion. There is no "right" answer as yet, and the NFHS is silent on any interpretaion.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Doesn't seem much room for interpretation here. A player who last touched the ground inbounds but is in the air above the sideline is inbounds.

Wouldn't argue with your above statement, but that's NOT the problem. The problem, causing all the agita, is the interpretation that a player who has clearly stepped (stomped or laid down) out of bounds (OOB), on his own, can somehow revert back to NOT being OOB, by simply jumping up into the air, even though doing so while remaining outside the field of play, and therefore can legally participate in play from his airborne position, because while in the air, he's, "not touching anything".

[KWH]

Alf-
We all clearly understand your point, and I am beyond certain however you will repeat it 7 more times! However, the play in the OP and the play in the Redding Study Guide were discussed at the NFHS Rules Interpreters Meeting in Indy on July 14th. These plays are legal as the player involved was not, by definition, out of bounds!
If you need further clarification, you should contact your association and/or state rules interpreter.

Nuff said!

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by KWH

Alf-
We all clearly understand your point, and I am beyond certain however you will repeat it 7 more times! However, the play in the OP and the play in the Redding Study Guide were discussed at the NFHS Rules Interpreters Meeting in Indy on July 14th. These plays are legal as the player involved was not, by definition, out of bounds!
If you need further clarification, you should contact your association and/or state rules interpreter.

Nuff said!

Not quite! I wasn't at the meeting in Indy, and no word has come to us nor have I seen anything in print in any official publication relating to this play. It may or may not have been discussed in any number of meetings, but until the NFHS talks about it, all we have is the rule book and hearsay.

The rule as written, published and disseminated, does not define the satus of such a player. Until that changes, the question is open for interpretation.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by KWH

Alf-
We all clearly understand your point, and I am beyond certain however you will repeat it 7 more times! However, the play in the OP and the play in the Redding Study Guide were discussed at the NFHS Rules Interpreters Meeting in Indy on July 14th. These plays are legal as the player involved was not, by definition, out of bounds!
If you need further clarification, you should contact your association and/or state rules interpreter.

Nuff said!

I'm glad you finally acknowledge you comprehend, "my point", although I'm not so sure you actually do. Had you just ONCE offered some semblance of logic as to why your position makes any basic common sense, whatsoever, or tried to explain some rationale to support your position, I may have been more persuaded to consider your position as being serious. Considering you inability, or refusal, to do so I 'm still unable to accept your premise.

I was merely trying to be polite in answering, what seemed like foolish and naive questions, you insisted on asking repeatedly providing you with the benefit of the doubt as to the seriousness of your position. That was before I concluded you were more interested in spouting off, than contributing anything of value to the issue.

Thankfully, living in this great land of ours we are each free to follow what we believe to be correct, including unsanctioned interpretations and opinions whether they be supported by common sense and logic or because someone else told us to, despite lacking any common sense or logic. As long as we accept all consequences for our choices, those choices are entirely ours to make.

[KWH]

Alf-
The interpretation I have presented is that of the NFHS!
In theory, that should be sufficient for every one of your requirements.

As for your opinion that, "...we are each free to follow what we believe to be correct...As long as we accept all consequences for our choices, those choices are entirely ours to make. I say stick to your guns Alf! History has shown us that attitudes such as this have a way of greatly shortening the period of time a person with such an attitude is allowed to masquerade in an officials uniform!