Reddings guide illegal participation

[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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Berkut

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. .

Well, I guess I've always considered that the rules of this game were intended to be logical and followed various patterns that make it understandable, somewhat predictable and striving towards logical objectives. I recognize, and appreciate, the fairly consistent difficulty in writing rules to avoid confusion or deliberately create circumstances that may inadvertently create unnecessary confusion.

The rule is question uses the word "touching" in a way that offers multiple possibilities. Interpretations can sometimes be stretched to varying degrees, which doesn't necessitate stretching interpretations to the most outlandish degree, which is where I would place the notion that by jumpimg up into the air (no longer touching) after satisfying the requirements to being OOB creates some momentary return to being inbounds.

I used the word ridiculous because I thought "stupid" would be unnecessarily harsh, but my vocabulary has limits. Rightly or wrongly, I have never considered football, or it's rules, rocket science, and I don't believe the intent of it's rule makers is to make any rule unecessarily complicated, vague or subject to irrational interpretation.

Football has two directional entities; in-bounds and OOB and appears to otherwise consider these two "places" separate and distinct from each other. I see no relevant purpose to support the notion that the otherwise bright line drawn between these two statuses would be intended to be blurred by such a unique interpretation. Therefore, until being persuaded there is some purpose or intent to supprt such an interpretation, I rely on logic and common sense to reject it.

You are obviously free to do as you so choose.

[Berkut]

I don't think it is "outlandish" to say that the word "touching" requires one to actually be touching something to apply. I think that is, in fact, the actual definition of the word.

I would, with all respect, suggest that it is a considerably larger stretch to "interpret" 'touching' to mean 'touching or have touched in the past even if NOT touching now', since I don't think that is at all the definintion of the word in common usage.

Example: Right now I am touching my keyboard. If I remove my finger from the keybord, am I still touching it? I think not.

Absent some specific instruction from the rulebook or relevant interpretation from the rules committee, I don't see how we can presume that logic, reason, or common sense would suggest that we re-define a word to mean something almost exactly the opposite of what it actually means.

I would further suggest that if in fact the rules committee decides this is an important enough problem to warrant a "fix" (I cannot possibly imagine how it could be), they need to change the verbiage of the rule, since an interpretation that involves actually changing the definition of a commonly known word to mean almost the opposite of its actual meaning would be needlessly confusing.

I don't see why they could not, if they wished, simply adopt the basketball-type rule on this issue.

[KWH]

Alf-
You post above has two incorrect statements:

1) You wrote: "The rule is question uses the word "touching"..."
The actual wording in the rule in question is: ...is touching...

2) You wrote: "Football has two directional entities; in-bounds and OOB and appears to otherwise consider these two "places" separate and distinct from each other".
In actuality, NFHS Football does not have a definition of IN BOUNDS which I believe IS likely the reasoning for your confusion.

So, and while you may continue to find it to be stupid, because there is no definition of inbounds, and since we only have a definition of out of bounds again then, by definition a player can either be "out of bounds" or "not out of bounds".

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by KWH

Alf-
You post above has two incorrect statements:

1) You wrote: "The rule is question uses the word "touching"..."
The actual wording in the rule in question is: ...is touching...

2) You wrote: "Football has two directional entities; in-bounds and OOB and appears to otherwise consider these two "places" separate and distinct from each other".
In actuality, NFHS Football does not have a definition of IN BOUNDS which I believe IS likely the reasoning for your confusion.

So, and while you may continue to find it to be stupid, because there is no definition of inbounds, and since we only have a definition of out of bounds again then, by definition a player can either be "out of bounds" or "not out of bounds".

KWH, I know you're not suggesting the "rule in question" doesn't use the word touching, because "touching seems like a part of the phrase "is touching", so where you were going with that escapes me.

If you want to build your argument along some abstract concept that there is no such thing as being in-bounds, that's entirely up to you, but forgive me if I don't find your effort at persuasion, compelling. I don't think some exercise in metaphysicics is intended as part of the construction of football rules. If something really doesn't make sense, or apply in any conceivable way to the game of football, it very likely is not an appropriate foundation on which to build a simple rule interpretation.

The tortured logic and attempts at convoluted "wordsmithing" is impressive, but not persuasive. The extent to which you are trying to twist any sense of logic out of this discussion underscores how silly your basic premis really is. Again, if you're comfortable accepting something you are incapable of explaining rationally, that is entirely your choice, but it's also entirely on you.

I think some of you are venturing way out beyond the reach of your headlights.

[KWH]

Originally Posted by ajmc

...If you want to build your argument along some abstract concept that there is no such thing as being in-bounds, that's entirely up to you, but forgive me if I don't find your effort at persuasion, compelling...

Alf-
In NFHS Football there is no such thing as an inbounds player. Unless of course you are referring to a player who is standing inside the hashmarks!
Perhaps you should read Rule 1-2-3e

[mikesears]

9 pages and nobody has changed anyone else's opinion on this. My "vote" goes with the Reddings interpretation.

[chymechowder]

Originally Posted by Berkut

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.

I think this is a good point. It gets to what I was trying to ask about in my fumble question. (I realize I"m new here, but someone please answer this!)

A22 fumbles forward near sideline. B55, who had overpursued and is now standing on the ground OOB, bats ball backwards, in bounds, to a defensive teammate. We have a whistle when B55 touches it, and it's A's ball at spot of fumble.

Now, same thing, but B55 jumps in the air when he bats the ball. What do we have?

I agree that by the NCAA rules, we have a legal play.

But I think it is worth asking the question: SHOULD this be legal? Does it represent a potential loophole?

Berkut, I agree that even if it is a loophole, it's not like teams will be able to start exploiting it left and right.

However, imagine this. Granted, I'm exaggerating a little but honestly, it's not as far-fetched as it may at first seem:

Team A throws a quick out. B22 steps in front of the receiver. The ball richochets high off B22's shoulder pads. The ball is clearly going to land a good 10 yards out of bounds. A80 runs out of bounds. He's kicking over yard markers, bumping into photographers, even pats a cheerleader on the a**...all the while walking on the ground OOB. He then settles under the ball, and when it gets close, he jumps up and bats it with two hands to A88, who's standing in bounds near the sideline. A88 catches it and runs untouched for a TD.

OK, I know that's a little silly, but assuming this is legal (and I believe it is), what do people think about it?

Maybe the answer is: hell yeah, it should be legal. Airborne is airborne. If you can take 5 steps out of bounds are are athletic enough to jump up and bat (or catch and throw) the ball backwards while you're still in the air, more power to you.

But IF the answer is: Actually, we never wanted to have players running out of bounds, chasing down overthrows and ricochets like they're trying to make a volleyball save, then maybe the rule needs to be clarified?

[ajmc]

Often, a totally outrageous example seems necessary to demonstrate a perfectly logical point. Your example, chymechowder, as outlandish as it seems, serves well to identify the extreme measures the Redding's interpretation could support.

This discussion should not be about which interpretation is more popular, rather the focus should be on which interpretation best supports the intent of the rule, which in and of itself is designed to clarify how the game is played.

Somehow, for well over 100 years, this game has survived without a specfic definition of "an inbounds player". That could be because nobody noticed, or more likely that everybody understands what that means. I can't say specifically, how long the current language of NF: 2-29-1 has been in place, but it seems this issues has only surfaced fairly recently.

Again, that raises a question is it because nobody noticed it, or just that nobody bothered to twist the language used far enough to create this Redding's interpretation? Granted the verbiage is clearly not the best choice of words, and that NFHS could eliminate the problem by either revising the language, or explaining their reasonings to support the Redding's interpretation.

Until either of those things happens, we are all responsible to interpret the rules as best we can, official interpretation aside which is the case with this particular issue.

A basic part of our job description is to be able to explain our rulings should they be appropriately disputed. Being totally unable to rationally explain any logic, purpose or practical application associated with the Redding's interpretation, I can only conclude the Redding's interpretation is incorrect.

If anyone, anywhere would be kind enough to explain any logic, any perceived purpose or practical application of this interpretation, I would be thankful and eager to consider it further. Until then, I'm going with what makes the most sense to me and my understanding of this game. That's a decision everyone has to make, and like all the other decisions we routinely make, accept whatever consequences result.

[Mike L]

And what do you do when you decide to rule as you see fit on one side of the field and then the exact same play happens on the other side but the official over there goes with the wording and interpretations that have been published? I guess as all hell breaks loose, at least you will have the comfort of knowing you are willing to accept those consequences.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Mike L

And what do you do when you decide to rule as you see fit on one side of the field and then the exact same play happens on the other side but the official over there goes with the wording and interpretations that have been published? I guess as all hell breaks loose, at least you will have the comfort of knowing you are willing to accept those consequences.

Mike L, I can't speak for wherever it is that you work, but where I work, we're fortunate that we tend to be on the same page about decisions, and when there might be some difference in judgment, that we haven't already previously adjusted to, we discuss it until there is consensus.

Most often when there is a serious disagreement, after deciding amongst the crew, how it will be enforced, during the game we'll expand the discussion at our next meeting until we reach a consensus how the issue will be enforced in the future, by the group.

chymechowder, what's so wonderful about this country, is you don't have to agree, unless you choose to. You are totally free to make your own determination and decide what you believe to be correct. Fortunately, however, you don't get to decide "what should be ruled legal" for anyone but yourself, although you are fully entitled to your opinion, as am I.

I'm just not convinced that any rule establishes your interpretation as being correct, and until I can be convinced, I've decided to go with what I believe to be right, to have been intended and to be in the best interests of the game. That has no bearing on what you decide, although I'd suggest you give it some serious thought.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Mike L, I can't speak for wherever it is that you work, but where I work, we're fortunate that we tend to be on the same page about decisions, and when there might be some difference in judgment, that we haven't already previously adjusted to, we discuss it until there is consensus.

Most often when there is a serious disagreement, after deciding amongst the crew, how it will be enforced, during the game we'll expand the discussion at our next meeting until we reach a consensus how the issue will be enforced in the future, by the group.

Where I work, any issue regarding how we call things would be decided before the season starts. Realistically however, something this odd is probably not going to come up. So it's going to be ruled on the fly when it happens. In any event, despite what appears here to be a majority against your position, you seem completely unwilling to accept said consensus which is wholly supported by your quote "Until then, I'm going with what makes the most sense to me and my understanding of this game. That's a decision everyone has to make, and like all the other decisions we routinely make, accept whatever consequences result." Perhaps you are more willing to bend to the will of the majority at your game.

[KWH]

My vote goes with the Redding interpretation also.

Anybody know how to set up one of thoses voting polls on this site?

[KWH]

Originally Posted by Mike L

And what do you do when you decide to rule as you see fit on one side of the field and then the exact same play happens on the other side but the official over there goes with the wording and interpretations that have been published? I guess as all hell breaks loose, at least you will have the comfort of knowing you are willing to accept those consequences.

MikeL brings up an excellant point. Lets take another look at Alf's philosophy of: ...I'm going with what makes the most sense to me and my understanding of this game. That's a decision everyone has to make, and like all the other decisions we routinely make, accept whatever consequences result...
If we were to utilize this Alf-Logic and make up your own interpretation and accept the consequensces on say for example the new Restricted Area / Coaches Box enforcment, I see the results as a bona-fide cluster-flop!

I believe attempting our very best to enforce the rules the same on both sides of the field and the same from week to week on different fields makes more sense, as, if we strived for continuity, it just might cut down on the coaches abilty to say, "It was illegal last week!" Speaking of that, I believe I am beginning to see why coaches make those statments. Must be really great to work a game for a team that last weeks crew included Alf!

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by KWH

If we were to utilize this Alf-Logic and make up your own interpretation and accept the consequensces on say for example the new Restricted Area / Coaches Box enforcment, I see the results as a bona-fide cluster-flop! Alf!

You keep trying to put words in my mouth KWH and it's just not working. Nobody has suggested making up our own interpretations about anything. You have decreed that an interpretation I happen to disagree with MUST be accepted. Personally, I don't think it makes any sense and do not agree that you are anywhere near correct. I have asked you repeatedly to explain your interpretation and thus far YOU HAVE BEEN UNABLE, or unwilling to even attempt to do so.

If you can't, or won't, defend or explain your own interpretation, why should I accept it's worth following? What you've offered thus far has simply failed to persuade, or impress me that your interpretation is correct. You can bark about it all you want, but barking alone doesn't cut it. If you're so damn "right", why are you so inept at simply explaining why your version makes sense?

All you have to do is explain your position, rationally, without defying common sense and logic or demonstrate how your version makes any sense in relation to the game of football, and I'll be more than happy to consider what you can offer. Because someone else, "told you so" won't do it.

Don't know about you, but I have never ruled anything, "on the fly" and have never hesitated to stop and make sure whatever I'm ruling on is correct and is agreed upon by the other officials I'm working with. Either they convince me, or I convince them and logic, common sense and the flow of the game are considered factors if a definitive answer is not otherwise available.

I can't guarantee that every coach I've had to explain something to agreed with my assessment, but I can assure you they understood my explanation of why I made my decision. Polling, isn't going to change wrong into right, it just quantifies the number who were wrong and those who are right.