Reddings guide illegal participation

[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.

[ppaltice]

Originally Posted by mikesears

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

I agree.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by mikesears

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

Same here. I think this thread has run its course.