Reddings guide illegal participation

[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

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by KWH

1) George did not write this case play but I know who did!

Since you know the author of this interpretation, why don't you ask him to explain the logic, sense or reasoning behind his interpretation?

[KWH]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Since you know the author of this interpretation, why don't you ask him to explain the logic, sense or reasoning behind his interpretation?

Alf-
I did just as you ask;
The author based his interpretation solely on the wording in the NFHS Rules Book!