Reddings guide illegal participation

[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?

[Jim D.]

This discussion has not been about adjusting, altering or ignoring a rule; it's been about deciding on how to best handle an odd play that really isn't covered in the book. If the rule book gave the answer, we would have saved 132 or more posts.

Without an answer from the book, we have to figure out the best ruling we can. Since this play isn't ever going to come up in a career, let alone more than once in a season or in a game, consistency among officials isn't really much of a worry.

I've studied the rules and read the different arguments, and I have my solution and I'm comfortable with it. To me it's logical, makes sense and seems fair, and as a bonus, probably would be the easiest sell of the options.

I understand a number of other officials prefer a different ruling, and I'm fine with that. Their arguments make sense too. I'm just trying to emphasize that those who disagree with the majority are not necessarily in the wrong and are not guilty of ignoring the rules. We just interpret the rule differently.

[chymechowder]

Originally Posted by KWH

My vote goes with the Redding interpretation also.

I agree that, as the definition of OOB is written, this interpretation is correct, even though it does seem strange.

Do you likewise agree, then, that there is seemingly no restriction to how many steps a player can take out of bounds before he jumps and bats/throws the ball back?

[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.

[Welpe]

Kevin, I responded on RefStripes. I guess I didn't remember the play correctly. Thanks for the correction.

[KWH]

This just in!

August 2009 REFEREE Magazine (Page 20) prints this exact play.

Ruling - LEGAL PLAY.

Before some of you start slamming REFEREE Magazine my understanding is all the case plays they print are now reviewed by the NFHS prior to printing!

[Welpe]

Did George Demetriou write this case play? If so, he changed his mind from last year about this being IP. I wonder if that play is still in the 2009 Redding Guide.

[KWH]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Did George Demetriou write this case play? If so, he changed his mind from last year about this being IP. I wonder if that play is still in the 2009 Redding Guide.

Welpe-
1) George did not write this case play but I know who did!
2) I do not know where or from whom you are getting your information, but the information you are providing is inaccurate! Why? Because, other than the page number and the example number the play and the ruling has remained unchanged in the 2007, 2008, and 2009 versions of :The Redding Study Guide to NFHS Football by Geroge Demetriou:

EXAMPLE 5-10: Wide reciever A83 runs along the sideline and after taking two steps out of bounds, jumps. While in the air, he (a) catches the ball and lands in bounds, or (b) bats the ball to A87 who catches the ball, and then A83 lands out of bounds. RULING: In both (a) and (b), the ball remains live and the catch is legal. In (a), A83 is guilty of illegal participation.

Also note, this is the exact same play provided in the original post of this thread. (138 Posts before this one)

Source:
2007 Redding Guide Page 38, Example 5-9
2008 Redding Guide Page 40, Example 5-10
2008 Redding Guide Page 40, Example 5-10

[chymechowder]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

I don't agree with this. Even if a rule "doesn't make sense" I don't believe we're supposed to interpret it in such a way until it conforms with our logic--even if everyone on the field agrees what the "logical" ruling should be.

Specifically, using my ricochet play, I'd tell the coach that it's technically legal.* I might even go so far as to sympathize with him when he insists, with vehemence, rage, and a fair amount of spittle, that it SHOULDN'T be legal.

But until the rules are changed, it should be ruled legal, regardless of how illogical it may seem.

*this is assuming the ricochet play is in fact, legal. If I'm missing something about the player running out of bounds before batting it back in, someone please point it out. thanks!