Reddings guide illegal participation

[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.