Reddings guide illegal participation

[bisonlj]

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. Sorry, but use of the phrase "is touching" does not trump the absolute absense of common sense and ridiculous result your interpretation requires.

Let me do this like a prosecutor in court.

Prosecutor: Do you agree the rule says (and I'm paraprhasing a little here with no change in intent), "A player...is out of bounds when any part of the person is touching anything...that is on or outside the sideline or end line."
ajmc: Yes
Prosecutor: Do you agree that "is touching" means the player is currently touching not previously touched or will be touching in the future?
ajmc: Yes
Prosecutor: In the play in question, is the player currently touching anything that is on or outside the sideline or end line?
ajmc: No
Prosecutor: So if the player is not touching anything that is on or outside the sideline or end line, are they, by definition, currently out of bounds?

Your answer to this question will either show you understand the rule or you don't understand the rule.

Even simpler:
Touching = out of bounds
Not touching = not out of bounds

I agree it seems somewhat illogical that the player could step out of bounds, leap into the air, legally touch the ball (bat it into the field of play), and come down out of bounds without committing a foul or otherwise make the ball dead. But that is clearly the way the rule is written and one that isn't that hard to enforce.

Here's another example I heard a few years ago that helped me to understand the rule. Let's say K has a scrimmage kick from the K40 and gunner K10 runs out of bounds on his way to cover the kick. Rather than returning in bounds, he runs all the way down the sideline and touches the ball (while still standing out of bounds) at the R10. The ball is dead as soon as K touches it since he's out of bounds. But he did not illegally participate in the play because he never returned to the field. That also seems illogical but that is the way the rule is written.

Out of curiosity, 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?

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Let me do this like a prosecutor in court.

Prosecutor: Do you agree the rule says (and I'm paraprhasing a little here with no change in intent), "A player...is out of bounds when any part of the person is touching anything...that is on or outside the sideline or end line."
ajmc: Yes
Prosecutor: Do you agree that "is touching" means the player is currently touching not previously touched or will be touching in the future?
ajmc: Yes
Prosecutor: In the play in question, is the player currently touching anything that is on or outside the sideline or end line?
ajmc: No
Prosecutor: So if the player is not touching anything that is on or outside the sideline or end line, are they, by definition, currently out of bounds?

Your answer to this question will either show you understand the rule or you don't understand the rule.

Allow me to ask a question then. I certainly understand the arguement that A is not out of bounds.

My question is - what is A's status? I can come up with 4 possible answers. A is :
1) Inbonds
2) Don't know
3) A third state not mentioned in the rule book (neither in nor out or both in and out)
4) Out of bounds

The rule book discusses only players being in bound or players being out of bounds so my assumption would be if he isn't out, he must be in; but that's just my assumption.

I know no one is going to change his mind on this and I think we've had enough rule citations already, I'm just curious about what you see his status as.

[KWH]

Jim D-

You continue to answer the question with a question. Unfortunatly however,
you failed to list the correct answer in your multiple choice question as his status is not out of bounds.

Therefore, the play is legal as he did not violate any of these rules:
2-29-1, 2-37, 9-6-1, 9-6-2 and 9-6-3

Have a great day!!!

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by KWH

Jim D-

You continue to answer the question with a question. Unfortunatly however,
you failed to list the correct answer in your multiple choice question as his status is not out of bounds.

Therefore, the play is legal as he did not violate any of these rules:
2-29-1, 2-37, 9-6-1, 9-6-2 and 9-6-3

Have a great day!!!

I didn't say he violated any rules, I was just wondering what his status is.

It sounds like you picked door number 3 - A third state not mentioned in the rule book (in this case "Not out of bounds").

That's all I was asking.

Have a good weekend. Srimmages start around he tomorrow.

[KWH]

My point is our charter is to determine if the play is legal.
And, since the player involved was "not out of bounds by rule",
the play has to be legal.

Determining the status of the player is NOT required for officials to make a ruling, and, is therefore, irrelvant.
We only have to determine if any rules were broken and, as much as EVERYBODY on this thread wants this play to be illegal, for now, it remains legal!

Enjoy your scrimmages.

[ref1986]

There is a beast in logic called a "false dilemma." Here's the general example:

It is either A or B. It is not A, therefore it must be B. To rephrase:

A player is either out of bounds or inbounds. He is not out of bounds, therefore he is inbounds.

However, there is a third possibility: in the air. A player in the air is simply that, he's in the air. At that moment he is neither inbounds nor out of bounds. Where he lands will determine which he is. (Consider a player leaving his feet inbounds, catching a pass, and landing out of bounds.) The NF could have written the rules so that a player's last status is also his current status if he is in the air: a player who leaves his feet while out of bounds is considered out of bounds until he touches inbounds, and vice versa. They chose not to do so.

[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.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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).

You really aren't interested in an opposing view point then. Fair enough, I will quit wasting my time. I think perhaps, you just do not want to admit you are wrong.

You leave me no choice but this is in my final rebuttal, which is about as inane as every one of your posts, perhaps less so:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WNrx2jq184

[Welpe]

On a side note, I am not going to be throwing any flags for horse collar fouls. I do not believe this should be illegal because it is a dopey rule so I will not call it. That's my interpretation.

[ajmc]

Based on the thought process you've displayed regarding OOB touching, it seems pretty consistent for you.

[Welpe]

Ironically enough, I used your justifications for it too. Glad to hear I have your blessing then because those damn rules are too cumbersome to have to memorize anyways.

I agree with KWH, don't let the rules get in the way of a good football game. OK I'm done for good on this thread. Have fun trolling the rest of the forum.

[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.

[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.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

I am totally serious. I would like to know the answers to those questions. Thank you in advance for your serious reply.