Reddings guide illegal participation

[KWH]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Of course, with no way of knowing for sure, this would only be a guess, but perhaps the NFHS is just so amazed that that such an obstinant, and really silly, interpretation could emerge from the present language. Maybe they think that your interpretation is just so ridiculous, those wanting to adhere to it are just joking, and playing with them. Or they might think that a revision of the current language may not help anyone dumb enough to accept your interpretation.

I don't think there is any doubt that you clearly understand what I'm saying, and I've tried, several times, to suggest I simply cannot make any sense out of what you are suggesting is the way this rule should be interpreted. Perhaps I'm just not as smart as you and am unable to make any sense out of your interpretation.

Unless I'm missing something, the rule doesn't state, or suggest in the slightest, that once a player establishes himself as being OOB, he has to remain in contact with whatever it was that he touched (that made him OOB)to remain OOB.

As I've offered countless times, it's very clear, simple, logical and follows the concept of the game, that a player who has been inbounds, retains that status even though he may pass over a sideline or endline airborne, until he touches something, including the ground OOB, at which point he becomes OOB. That makes sense and is in line with the concept of the game.

Your argument, that after running around OOB, apparently indefinitely, a player can somehow regain his lost inbounds status by simply jumping up ito the air (while remaining outside the boundry lines) defies logical explanation.

You seem reluctant to even try and think this scenario through and appear willing to accept something you agree makes no sense, because someone conjured up this dopey interpretation. If you're comfortable with that, that's on you.

I would really appreciate you, or anyone, who buys into your interpretation explaining whatever logic you can muster up to make sense out of it. If it doesn't make any sense , at all, it can't be right.

Huh?
Alf-
Are you so anal retentive that you can't see, on this entire thread, no one supports your opinion? Is it possible you could be wrong? Or, are you so far superior to the rest of us peons that you feel we can not determine very clear, simple, logical and follows the concept of the game, that you defy.
You are, Alf, a legend in your own mind.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by KWH

Huh?
Alf-
Are you so anal retentive that you can't see, on this entire thread, no one supports your opinion? Is it possible you could be wrong? Or, are you so far superior to the rest of us peons that you feel we can not determine very clear, simple, logical and follows the concept of the game, that you defy.
You are, Alf, a legend in your own mind.

I've been wrong many times, KWH, about many things, so accepting I'm wrong is no great novelty and has often served as a great way to learn. Before I accept being wrong, however, I have an expectation of being shown where I'm wrong and what is right, neither of which you have come anywhere close to providing.

You keep spouting off "that" I'm wrong, but you have yet to offer any explanation of why I'm wrong, or more importantly, why the interpretation you support is right, other than because someone told you so, and YOU have decided to accept an interpretation of the written rule, you can't explain makes absolutely no sense. ,

It's totally unimportant to me, whether you agree with my conclusion. You choose to ignore the logic and common sense of my perspective, and have yet to even try and refute what I've suggested. I'm not suggesting the rule is wrong, I am merely suggesting your particular interpretation makes no sense, regardless of where you've heard it, and if it cannot be explained logically, or in some way explained so it relates, in some way, to the concept of the game of football, it's not right and I'm not buying.

All you have to do to persuade me your interpretation is correct, is explain it to me so it makes sense. I realize it's a lot easier to talk about my being "anal" and nobody liking me and silly BS about being a legend, but until you can muster up enough detail to be persuasive, you're just blowing smoke up my butt. Let me know when you've got something a little more solid than smoke to offer. Nuff said.

Knowledge is good, only when it's good knowledge

[jaybird]

Alf,
This is where Kevin gets the rule support to confirm his "interpretation". Whether it satisfies your "logic or common sense" is immaterial.

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.

Simple explanation: If a player is airborne and not touching anything, he is NOT out of bounds.

You would need to discard any of your thought processes that involve your conceived convictions of what is logical and understand the rule as it is simply written. Accept what is written and the fact that your interpretation of what is logical and common sense may not be the accepted norm that everyone lives by.

There, you have the only "proof" that is needed. Either accept it or not, but remember that what KWH advocates has rule support!

[waltjp]

Alf, word of advice, when it's you against the world - bet on the world.

KWH has provided written interpretations to back his position. You counter with what you 'think' the rule means. There's really no sense to belabor the point any longer.

[Jim D.]

Several people claim to have the only one and authorized answer, and that therefore all other opinions or views are wrong. However, the rule as written, does not give the answer and there is nothing else from the NFHS that would shed additional light on it. In other words, there is no "right" answer.

There is no need to rehash the different views, they're all buried in the post.

Point 1 - The rule does not tell us the status of this player.
Point 2 - There is no additional comment, interpretation, ruling published by the NFHS that discusses this play.

Until such time as the NFHS re-writes the rule or releases an interpretation, the puppy is open to several conflicting, but valid interpretations. I'm not claiming to have THE answer, I'm just saying no one else has the offical answer either.

I think we're mature enough to live with a little ambiguity.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by jaybird

Alf,
This is where Kevin gets the rule support to confirm his "interpretation". Whether it satisfies your "logic or common sense" is immaterial.



Simple explanation: If a player is airborne and not touching anything, he is NOT out of bounds.

You would need to discard any of your thought processes that involve your conceived convictions of what is logical and understand the rule as it is simply written. Accept what is written and the fact that your interpretation of what is logical and common sense may not be the accepted norm that everyone lives by.

There, you have the only "proof" that is needed. Either accept it or not, but remember that what KWH advocates has rule support!

Perhaps you are comfortable with, "discard(ing) any of your thought processes that involve your conceived convictions of what is logical", but my problem is NOT with the rule, my problem is with HOW some have elected to interpret it.

As for "rule support", I don't read where NF: 2-29-1 states, or even remotely suggests, that after a player renders himself OOB (by touching anything OOB) he has to maintain contact with what he touched to remain OOB, which is what your interpretation requires.

Under your interpretation, a player could take himself OOB, run the entire length of the football field OOB, then jump up into the air and legally bat a live, loose ball back onto the field from OOB, and you want to argue that is what the rule intends, despite being unable to refute that being illogical. Please don't waste my time with your, "rule support", what you suggest as "rule support" is a figment of your imagination.

If you can suggest some semblance of logic, or reason that such an intent has anything whatsoever to do with the rational flow of the game of football, I'd be really interested in hearing it. Otherwise all you're saying is that "someone" has conjured up a meaning, to the string of words used, that makes absolutely no sense, or has any rational relation to the game of football, and everyone else should simply hold their nose and buy into it, despite the fact it makes no sense.

You might consider, if you accept that the rules of the game, any of them, INTENTIONALLY MAKE NO SENSE, you undermine the credibility of the game.

In the absence of a an official interpretation, You get to choose which interpretation you believe applies, and so do I. Good luck with your selection, I'm just fine with mine.

[KWH]

Originally Posted by ajmc

...a player could take himself OOB, run the entire length of the football field OOB, then jump up into the air and legally bat a live, loose ball back onto the field from OOB...

Legal play!
When the airbourne PLAYER batted the football, such PLAYER, by NFHS definition, is not out of bounds as per: NFHS 2-29-1.
Therefore, by rule, this play is legal as the ball did not touch anything that is out of bounds as per NFHS 2-29-3.

Thanks for the great sample play. It sure gets us all thinking and remembering to:
READ RULE 2, READ RULE 2, READ RULE 2

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by KWH

Legal play!
When the airbourne PLAYER batted the football, such PLAYER, by NFHS definition, is not out of bounds as per: NFHS 2-29-1.
Therefore, by rule, this play is legal as the ball did not touch anything that is out of bounds as per NFHS 2-29-3.

Thanks for the great sample play. It sure gets us all thinking and remembering to:
READ RULE 2, READ RULE 2, READ RULE 2

You are having enough difficuly, KWH, with the words coming out of your mind, to try and put words in mine. As I suggested, IF YOU BUY INTO YOUR INTERPRETATION, that ridiculous sample play could actually appear to be legal. If however, you consider logic, common sense and a familiarity with the basic intent of the game of football, you may likely come to a completely opposite conclusion.

Reading and understanding Rule 2 is very important to comprehending the rules of the game and effectively enforcing them, as is being cautious not to add a lot of unwritten, superflous assumptions, that contradict the foundational basics of the game, such as that a player who has clearly established himself OOB, continues to be OOB as long as he remains OOB.

[mikesears]

Originally Posted by ajmc

You are having enough difficuly, KWH, with the words coming out of your mind, to try and put words in mine. As I suggested, IF YOU BUY INTO YOUR INTERPRETATION, that ridiculous sample play could actually appear to be legal. If however, you consider logic, common sense and a familiarity with the basic intent of the game of football, you may likely come to a completely opposite conclusion.

Reading and understanding Rule 2 is very important to comprehending the rules of the game and effectively enforcing them, as is being cautious not to add a lot of unwritten, superflous assumptions, that contradict the foundational basics of the game, such as that a player who has clearly established himself OOB, continues to be OOB as long as he remains OOB.

I don't know what a superflous interpretation is.

Al, you continue to put forth an appeal to ridicule argument. Basically you are saying that your position is right because the other position is stupid (superfluous, contradict foundational basics, illogical, etc).

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by ajmc

You are having enough difficuly, KWH, with the words coming out of your mind, to try and put words in mine. As I suggested, IF YOU BUY INTO YOUR INTERPRETATION, that ridiculous sample play could actually appear to be legal. If however, you consider logic, common sense and a familiarity with the basic intent of the game of football, you may likely come to a completely opposite conclusion.

I am not sure I understand this.

Football is a game defined by the rules under which it is played - there is no "logic" to it, per se - only rules. There is logic in how we draw conclusions from the rules (for example, logic tells us that the ground cannot cause a fumble - there is no rule that says so, per se, but logic means that this is is the certain conclusion of the application of the rules).

The rules seem very clear in how they define a players status as OOB - I don't see any interpretation even needed. That "ridiculous" sample play is legal because that is how the rules are written. Whether it is "logical" that it be legal isn't really relevant, and I think it is a mis-use of the term "logic". Logic deals with rules and how you apply them to reach a conclusion. Logically, the play is legal. There is certainly no logical fallacy involved in concluding that the play is legal based on the rules given.

It is perfectly logical to conclude that a "ridiculous" play is legal, if in fact the rules support the play as being legal. I don't think anyones sense of outrage is really the point.

Now, you can argue that the play should not be legal, perhaps. And maybe that is the case - I don't really see what benefit a team could get from trying to exploit such a loophole though.

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by ajmc

that contradict the foundational basics of the game, such as that a player who has clearly established himself OOB, continues to be OOB as long as he remains OOB.

Where is that in the rules?

The rules state that a player is OOB as long as he is touching something OOB, right?

It doesn't say anything about him staying OOB when he isn't touching something OOB - why would you assume that there is a "foundational basic" of the game that isn't mentioned in the rulebook, when the rulebook specifically does mention the rather specific definition?

I think I must be missing something here - what is it?