Reddings guide illegal participation

[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.

[raider]

Guys:
I have enjoyed this discussion on this illegal participation but I know one of the coaches in our area, who reads this forum, is probably incorporating this play into his playbook already!

So I went to the source to get some guidance. I emailed the author of the Redding study guide on this issue. I don't have permission to quote the email, so let me explain the gist of what he said in terms of our discussion.

The assumption some here have made that a player is either in bounds or out of bounds is not correct. There is a third state - call it a transition state- and this "void" in the rules is intentional because not to have it creates other problems. (I can't give further details cause I don't know any, so don't shoot the messenger!).

Anyway, the Redding Guide is correct and option B is a legal play as long as the player doesn't catch the ball and land out of bounds. Weird, but there it is. (and I hope that coach doesn't read this thread this far! or if he does, when I ask him in pregame if he has any unusual plays, he'd better confess).

-Raider

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by raider

Anyway, the Redding Guide is correct and option B is a legal play as long as the player doesn't catch the ball and land out of bounds. Weird, but there it is. (and I hope that coach doesn't read this thread this far! or if he does, when I ask him in pregame if he has any unusual plays, he'd better confess).

-Raider

Appreciate your efforts, but if "author of the Redding study guide" is either unwilling, or possibly unable, to explain or possibly defend his, "transition state" hypothesis in clear and understandable language, that makes enough sense that I can subsequently explain it to someone else, I'm not buying it, sorry. If you want to accept something, you can't fathom, as gospel, without understanding it, that's your option.

When someone can't (or won't) explain, or defend, what they're trying to sell, it's usually a valid warning that should give pause about buying. As for your coach, should he run some trick play past you before the game, you might advise him, "Thank you, here's how we going to rule on that today" and then explain your understanding of the rule to him, and how you will enforce it.