Reddings guide illegal participation

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Gentlemen, who are you trying to convince. me or youselves? I have long suggested that each of you should do as you see fit, and if you are comfortable not being able to rationally explain why your interpretation, about anything, defies common sense and logic, THAT'S ON YOU.

I'm perfectly comfortable explaining my interpretation and standing behind it.

You can make up all the silly imaginary responses you like, imitating prosecutors ( you don't seem cut out for that), even playing the role of English teachers and the only impressions you are making are with yourselves.

All any one of you, or all of you together if you feel safer, have to do to persuade me is present a reasonable, rational argument, suggest some reason why your interpretation makes any sense related to the game or relate some logic to your interpretation. Thus far none of you have come anywhere close to being competent to do that, any of that.

When one of you matures enough to try and put forth a cogent, rational explantion of your position, without trying to be a smart a$$, do feel free to get back to me. However, until you can muster up that ability, or some level of competence, do yourselves a favor and don't waste your time, or mine, with the same old repackaged nonsense. It doesn't float (because it won't float).

I can understand your ambivalence and frustration in trying to convince yourselves that buying into such a contradictory notion, without any sense of understanding or explanation makes sense, but your inability to mount any type of persuasive argument supporting your position, should give you all the pause you need to try and think your position through.

We have done this over and over again quoting rules verbatim and giving you specific examples that are generally accepted by almost every official and you dismiss them because you don't agree with them. There is nothing I can do to spell this out any more black and white than I have.

I also notice you have failed to answer any of my direct questions so I will try again.
Do you ever get into arguments with the other members of your high school varsity crew about rules questions?
What position do you work on your crew?
Why do the other people on here call you Alf?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Do you ever get into arguments with the other members of your high school varsity crew about rules questions?
What position do you work on your crew?
Why do the other people on here call you Alf?

Forgive me for not answering your questions, I just didn't think you were serious. Since they still don't appear to be serious, I'll continue to ignore them, but didn't want you to think I missed them.

[chymechowder]

Originally Posted by ajmc

If you could explain it, rationally, I am absolutely willing to reconsider and based on the strength of the explanation might well be persuaded.

OK, I'll take a shot at a rational reason:

Let's say a loose ball hits the ground in bounds and bounces in the air over the sideline. Let's also say there's a scrum of players in the area....Presumably, you have no problem with an inbounds linebacker going airborne directly above the sideline and batting it back to a teammate, right?

What you seem to not be OK with is: the same linebacker standing 3 yards OOB, jumping back towards the field of play, and while in the air above the sideline, batting it back to a teammate.

Well maybe the rulemakers realized that the official on the sideline can't possibly keep track of every player--offense and defense--who puts a toe out of bounds during the play.

So instead, all I have to look for is one thing: is the player who's batting that loose ball touching OOB ground while doing it? If yes, dead ball OOB. If no--if he's airborne--then play on. And I don't care where he came from or which direction he's jumping.

(Granted, we do need to look for certain players going out of bounds on their own. But those times are specific situations that are easily spotted/tracked; and they prevent a team from obtaining a CLEAR unfair advantage.)

Anyway, there's my attempt at bridging the gap. Does that persuade you at all?

[KWH]

So Alf (aka, AJMC), and his special alter-ego cousin Adolf (aka, ASDF) are working a huge saturday morning Pop Warner 3rd/4th grade tilt, score is tied at 0-0 with :30 remaining in the contest when the play in the original post of this thread occurs. Alf and Adolf let the play run its course and then prior to the extra point they put there heads together to share their respective gray matter. They both approach the coach of the scoring team, Alf tells the coach "we have an incomplete pass" while Adolf says "we have illegal partcipation". The coach says, "but wait, those are two distinctly different rulings, what rules are you basing these on on?" Both Alf and Adolf respond in unision "We use common sense and logic!" The coach says, "Well I have a rule book, an article in Referee Magazine, a case play in the Redding Study Guide, and we ran they play by our NFHS State Rules interpreter all of whom say the play is legal"! Alf responds with; "Well thats their interpretation!" Then Adolf adds, "But coach what you don't realize is, Officials must have a football sense whIch SUPERSEDES the techincal application of the rules so that the game goes smoothly, and the technical application of this rule (interpretation) in the way you suggest, will ensure that your game ceases to run smoothly. The coach responds with, "Huh"? Alf, wanting to hurry the game along adds, "You see coach we have to use common sense and logic!" The coach looks Adolf right in the eye and says, "It sound to me like you two just make sh*t up as you go along!" To which Alf replys, "Well thats your interpretation;, let me give you another interpretation coach, You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear", and your interpretation is just plain dopey, and makes no sense. As long as we are dressed up in these uniforms we must be prepared to rationally defend, explain or apply any logic or functional purpose related to the game of football to, and we must remain somewhat ill equipped to render dependable judgments"!
The coach takes a step back and says, "I've learned a long time ago, when something absolutely can't be explained rationally, it just can't be right, no matter who tells you so, or how loud they tell you. I'm comfortable defending my position, and when asked to explain it, have no trouble making sense of it. Can you?" Alf looks to Adolf, then back at the coach and says, "Huh"?

After the game is over the coach approaches both Alf and Adlof and hands them a rule open to this (applicable) rule:
RULE 2 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.

[waltjp]

Well played, sir.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by KWH

So Alf (aka, AJMC), and his special alter-ego cousin Adolf (aka, ASDF) are working a huge saturday morning Pop Warner 3rd/4th grade tilt, score is tied at 0-0 with :30 remaining in the contest when the play in the original post of this thread occurs. Alf and Adolf let the play run its course and then prior to the extra point they put there heads together to share their respective gray matter. They both approach the coach of the scoring team, Alf tells the coach "we have an incomplete pass" while Adolf says "we have illegal partcipation". The coach says, "but wait, those are two distinctly different rulings, what rules are you basing these on on?" Both Alf and Adolf respond in unision "We use common sense and logic!" The coach says, "Well I have a rule book, an article in Referee Magazine, a case play in the Redding Study Guide, and we ran they play by our NFHS State Rules interpreter all of whom say the play is legal"! Alf responds with; "Well thats their interpretation!" Then Adolf adds, "But coach what you don't realize is, Officials must have a football sense whIch SUPERSEDES the techincal application of the rules so that the game goes smoothly, and the technical application of this rule (interpretation) in the way you suggest, will ensure that your game ceases to run smoothly. The coach responds with, "Huh"? Alf, wanting to hurry the game along adds, "You see coach we have to use common sense and logic!" The coach looks Adolf right in the eye and says, "It sound to me like you two just make sh*t up as you go along!" To which Alf replys, "Well thats your interpretation;, let me give you another interpretation coach, You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear", and your interpretation is just plain dopey, and makes no sense. As long as we are dressed up in these uniforms we must be prepared to rationally defend, explain or apply any logic or functional purpose related to the game of football to, and we must remain somewhat ill equipped to render dependable judgments"!
The coach takes a step back and says, "I've learned a long time ago, when something absolutely can't be explained rationally, it just can't be right, no matter who tells you so, or how loud they tell you. I'm comfortable defending my position, and when asked to explain it, have no trouble making sense of it. Can you?" Alf looks to Adolf, then back at the coach and says, "Huh"?

After the game is over the coach approaches both Alf and Adlof and hands them a rule open to this (applicable) rule:
RULE 2 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.

Name calling ??? Wow you hurt my feelings

Classic and very predictable though....

That being said............

I can counter the coach's claim with a common sense football interpretation.

If B's coach hands you the Officials Manual highlighted with what I have a previously argued, you can only counter with a technicality and ironically, definitions of what "is" is.

I can make the case that standing three rows deep in the band is not what the rules makers had in mind by designating a player "inbounds". Can you make the case that it was their intent?

Didn't think so................

Have a great season...............

[mikesears]

Al, your comment is passive agressive. It has nothing to do with trying to convince ourselves and I think you know that. I should have followed my own advice two pages ago and simply forgotten about this thread. Somebody slap me!

[KWH]

Originally Posted by asdf

Name calling ??? Wow you hurt my feelings

Classic and very predictable though....

That being said............

I can counter the coach's claim with a common sense football interpretation.

If B's coach hands you the Officials Manual highlighted with what I have a previously argued, you can only counter with a technicality and ironically, definitions of what "is" is.

I can make the case that standing three rows deep in the band is not what the rules makers had in mind by designating a player "inbounds". Can you make the case that it was their intent?

Didn't think so................

Have a great season...............

Huh?