Reddings guide illegal participation

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I think we agree that when the player touched anything OOB, he became OOB.

Not quite. The reading of the very definition does not lend OOB to being a persistent state but rather a volatile state that exists only as long as a specific condition is being met.

Why are you choosing to ignore the straight forward language in the rule? "Is touching" is very specific unless you disagree with my previous post about the plain English definition of what "is touching" means?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Not quite. The reading of the very definition does not lend OOB to being a persistent state but rather a volatile state that exists only as long as a specific condition is being met.

Why are you choosing to ignore the straight forward language in the rule? "Is touching" is very specific unless you disagree with my previous post about the plain English definition of what "is touching" means?

I'm talking about a football rule and how the way some choose to interpret it makes no sense relating to the game, defies logic and offers no rational purpose, and really don't get all that worked up about some notion about, " a persistent state but rather a volatile state that exists only as long as a specific condition is being met."

[mikesears]

Originally Posted by ajmc

the way some choose to interpret it makes no sense relating to the game, defies logic and offers no rational purpose, and really don't get all that worked up about some notion about, " a persistent state but rather a volatile state that exists only as long as a specific condition is being met."

I took the liberty of editing your post.

It should look like this:

the way MOST choose to interpret it makes no sense (to me) relating to the game (as I think it should be called), defies (my) logic, and offers no rational purpose (in my opinion).....


Your OPINION of logic, sense, and rationality is of little value just as trying to show you our logic, rationale, and sense is. Frankly, I believe the rule is crystal clear. It's time to quit saying the same things over and over.

On to better topics. This one is obviously dead.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I'm talking about a football rule and how the way some choose to interpret it makes no sense relating to the game, defies logic and offers no rational purpose, and really don't get all that worked up about some notion about, " a persistent state but rather a volatile state that exists only as long as a specific condition is being met."

I don't understand you. You ask for logic, reasonings, etc to support the interpretation and then you reject them with vague terms, relying on your supposed common sense but you don't offer any real argument. You really don't seem to want an explanation.

Do you have a response to my post about the present tense or are you going to ignore it?

[jaybird]

Where we part ways is over how, or more importantly why, you presume he would regain a status of being inbounds,...

I don't recall anyone saying that. What has been said and written in the rule book, is if a player is airborne he is no longer considered out of bounds by definition. By rule, to be out of bounds, a player must be touching something OOB, but since he is not touching, he is not OOB.

Simple, basic, easy to read English. Accept it and quit trying to insist on it conforming to your "logic".

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by jaybird

Simple, basic, easy to read English. Accept it and quit trying to insist on it conforming to your "logic".

Let's understand one point, I couldn't possibly care less what you determine or conclude is logic.

I'll quit trying to maintain my point, when you, or anyone else, can explain how, AFTER a player becomes OOB (by touching anything OOB) any rule suggests, hints or states he can return to not remaining OOB, by jumping up into the air while still outside the boundry lines?

[asdf]

You know, this is hilarious...

Our Official's Manual states................


Players who have practiced long hours deserve competent officials who have complete understanding of the letter, as well as the spirit and intent of the rules...."

It further goes on to state............

The basic requirement for all sports officials is courage."

If one can't look at this situation and understand the intent of the rule, and/or won't rule against what is written, they have not fulfilled either of the prior items we are charged with.

This situation is not covered in the book. Ruling this player inbounds goes against any shred of common sense in any circle of officiating.

Have the balls (courage) to rule against what is written.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by asdf

Have the balls (courage) to rule against what is written.

Excellent advice!

Are there any other written rules we should ignore?

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I don't understand you. You ask for logic, reasonings, etc to support the interpretation and then you reject them with vague terms, relying on your supposed common sense but you don't offer any real argument. You really don't seem to want an explanation.

Do you have a response to my post about the present tense or are you going to ignore it?

Sounds like you're starting to understand...

[ppaltice]

I would say that 'where we part ways' is that some people insist there should be a player status 'inbounds' and others are fine that the NF rules neither defines nor uses the term 'inbounds player.'

Within this thread we have seen the term 'inbounds player' defined and have had non-existant rules invented to utilize this term.

Look at 2-29, 2-32, and 9-6. These rules define a player out of bounds, the different player designations, and the Illegal Participation rules. These are the rules. Why invent other rules because you think they should be there.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I don't understand you. Do you have a response to my post about the present tense or are you going to ignore it?

I'm not comfortable, or competent, to assume the role of English professor as may be necessary to explain a common sense, obvious situation, nor do I accept that you are either. I also don't accept your summary of "present tense" as it applies to this situation.

You have provided neither fact, logic or anything close to a reasonable explanation of why, how or whether your argument that a player can somehow retain the status on being inbounds by simply jumping up into the air after clearly being OOB.

If you (any of you) want to buy into this BS without satisfying the slightest shred of it making any sense WHATSOEVER, knock yourselves out that's entirely your choice. If you're comfortable accepting, "what the meaning of is, is" that's on you.

I'm certainly dissappointed that NFHS remains silent regarding this issue, as they could (should) take the time to clear it up. Thatis on them.

If, however, you personally can't figure out how to simply explain why a rule is correct, then do yourselves a favor and don't try and bark about why it should be followed anyway.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I'm not comfortable, or competent, to assume the role of English professor as may be necessary to explain a common sense, obvious situation, nor do I accept that you are either. I also don't accept your summary of "present tense" as it applies to this situation.

A simple "I don't understand how tense works in the English language." would've sufficed.

It's not a complicated subject, requiring a college degree to understand. They do teach this in grade school afterall.

Your "common sense" is absurd and trying to have a discussion with you is a waste of time. You are completely incapable of admitting when you're wrong.

You are not interested in discussion, you're interested in dictating.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Welpe

A simple "I don't understand how tense works in the English language." would've sufficed.

It's not a complicated subject, requiring a college degree to understand. They do teach this in grade school afterall.

Your "common sense" is absurd and trying to have a discussion with you is a waste of time. You are completely incapable of admitting when you're wrong.

You are not interested in discussion, you're interested in dictating.

There is a lot my degree didn't cover, and I often drifted off into day dreams during grade school, which is why I so often rely on gifted "smart" people, like you welpe, to guide me to the light.

Instead of wasting all your effort trying to insult me, why not devote just a little of your superior intelligence to simply explaining why a dolt like me should understand and accept the (choose as many as you like) logic, common sense or any practical purpose related to the game of football for your interpretation.

Surely, someone as intelligent as you could easily persuade a dolt like me that there is some (any) rational basis for your interpretation. You've had a lot of opportunities to do so, thus far, but just haven't seemed able, or willing, to do so. You don't want to leave any impression that you might be the kind of official who doesn't think through his decisions and just does what he's told, even when he can't make any sense out of what he's been told.

[KWH]

Alf-

In response to your request of: ..."Surely, someone as intelligent as you could easily persuade a dolt like me that there is some (any) rational basis for your interpretation"...

That being said the game we officiate has rules. Whether or not you agree with these rules is insignifigant. You should learn to rely on and enforce these as they are written!

For an example, here is rule 2-37 for you to begin with:

SECTION 37 - RULE
A rule is one of the groups of regulations which governs the game. A rule sometimes states what a player may do, but if there is no such statement for a given act (such as faking a kick), it is assumed that he may do what is not prohibited. In like manner, a rule sometimes states or implies that the ball is dead or that a foul is involved. If it does not, it is assumed that the ball is live and that no foul occurred. If a foul is mentioned, it is assumed that it is not part of a double or multiple foul unless so stated or implied.