Reddings guide illegal participation

[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?

[KWH]

I'm with Berkut!
And I would add there is Rules Book support for Berkut's ruling.

As for Alf, I can find no Rules Book support for:
"a player who has clearly established himself OOB, continues to be OOB as long as he remains OOB". and, absent of rules book support, Alf's interpretation is incorrect.


Officials are hired to officiate the Rules of the Game even if they personally do not agree with them.
For example, I personally do not think that a player who has established himself as an OOB player should be able to leap in the air and bat a football and the football remain live as the player is not, by definition OOB. However, since I am hired to officiate the game as written in the NFHS rules book, I do not have the luxury of relying on logic, common sense, familiarity with the basic intent of the game of football, superflous assumptions, foundational basics of the game, or magic 8-balls.
Rather, because I am hired to officiate the game based on NFHS rules, the play must be ruled as legal for there is nothing to specifically state that it is illegal.

How can I arrive at this conclusion? Simple!
The answer is found in the well written and often overlooked Rule 2-37 which is the definition of a Rule.

So, in conclusion, based on Rules 2-29-1, 2-29-3, and 2-37 the play is legal! And for clarification, football officials are not within their juristriction to tell a coach, "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, as doing so would be a violation of the written rules, foolhardy, and a bit askew!

Read Rule 2, Read Rule 2, Read Rule 2

Nuff said

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by Berkut

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?

I think here is what's missing - There is no defenition of inbounds in the rule book.

This whole discussion revolves around a player who is out of bounds and who then jumps in the air. Unfortunately, there is no rule coverage to define his status.

Is he inbounds? Don't know. He could be based on a logic assumption that if he isn't out, then he must be in (the only two states the rules acknowlege).

Is he still out? Not sure - he's not touching anything so presumably he's not still out, although that would seem the most logical conclusion. Did the rules writers mean to be that restrictive when they wrote the rule or were they just trying to define when he should be considered to have gone out?

Is he in some in-between state? That seems the most unlikely. There is no rule support for the existance of a neither-in-nor-out state, and it seems unlikely the rules makers ever imagined such a state. If they did have such an odd state in mind, I would think they would have mentioned it. I think this status is the least likely possibility.

Anyway, because of the above, the play is open to individual interpretation. I've yet to see a reference to an NF rule or interpretation that clears it up. I know KWH strongly feels this is a legal play, and I'm fine with that. I'd call it "incomplete" because that's what I think is the proper call. I may well be wrong, but I don't think so.

I'm not saying anyone is wrong, except when they say their answer is the "correct or approved" rule. There isn't one that I've seen yet.

[Berkut]

If we agree that there is no such thing as "not in but not out of bounds" (and I don't see how one can claim that there is any such thing), then the only choices there are are "out of bounds" and "in bounds".

The rule does in fact specifially state what makes someone out of bounds. If we accept that they must be out or in, then if the rule specifically states that they are our under specific circumstances, then barring those specific circumstances, reason would dictate that they are in bounds.

Now, perhaps this is an oversight in the rules that ought to be cleared up - but the rules as written, I think, are in fact very clear. The only way to argue that someone in air is NOT in bounds is to either

1. Argue that there exists some kind of alternate status to in and out of bounds, or
2. Argue that the rule which defines out of bounds has changed the meaning of the word "touching" to mean something rather different from what we understand it to mean.

If the rule writers meant to say that the player *remains* out of bounds until he touches something in bounds, then they should have said so - imagining that they meant to say so when they did not is taking us outside the realm of the rules, and into the realm of what we think the rules ought to be - a different discussion entirely.

I wonder what the NCAA and NFL rulebooks say about this?

Personally, I agree that this is a rather silly idea - that someone can go out of bounds and then legally touch a ball. I don't really think it will ever come up though.

You could deal with this specific play by defining IP to include touching the ball after going OOB as well.

[Jim D.]

Berkut, I agree with your comments but then here is the rub. If the player who is no longer out-of-bounds is in-bounds because he jumped:

a) he is guilty of IP (even if he doesn't touch the ball) because he has returned inbounds after having gone out.

b) any sub on the sideline would be guilty of IP if he jumped in the air while cheering on a great play.

Because of that, I've ruled out in-bounds as a choice and I already ruled out the "neither-in-nor-out" state so I'm sticking with out of bounds as the best call.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

Berkut, I agree with your comments but then here is the rub. If the player who is no longer out-of-bounds is in-bounds because he jumped:


b) any sub on the sideline would be guilty of IP if he jumped in the air while cheering on a great play.

No, they wouldn't be guilty of IP because they are non-players and they did not participate in the play. This is not the same as a player leaving and entering the field again during a play.

This, along with both the Redding Guide currently ruling this way and the NFHS casebook having done so at one time (with no published change), I am comfortable in going with the majority on this play.

That makes the most sense to me. To argue that the present tense verb "touching" also includes the past tense does not make much sense to me at all.