Reddings guide illegal participation

[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.