Reddings guide illegal participation
 

Im struggling with with an issue from the Reddings Guide....Page 38 2007 edition....PASSING GAME ....

Receiver A 83 runs along sideline takes two steps out of bounds and jumps while in air (a ) catches the ball and lands inbounds...(b) bats the ball to A87 inbounds who catches the ball....while A 83 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....

How in (b) is the catch legal ..and isnt A83 guilty of illegal participation on that as well ?

FED 2-29-1

ART. 1 . . . A player or other person is out of bounds when any part of the person is touching anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside the sideline or end line.

In your example a player who is airborne is not touching anything out of bounds so the player is not considered out of bounds. The bat is legal and because A83 did not return to the field of play he is not guilty of illegal participation.

Illegal participation from reddings guide
 

THANKS ..Ive yet to find any official I know get that correctly.....it seems there has to be a foul on this play... yet there is not ?

Illegal participation from reddings guide
 

Every official i pose this to says...NO WAY...I appreciate Walts response..and Ii believe hes correct...does anybody else have anything else on this ?

FED RULES PLEASE

Further Reading:

NFHS Forum: tough sideline call

NFHS Forum: Coach's special play discussion

It's different than basketball. In basketball, your status is the same as where you last touched the floor. So a player who is OOB remains OOB until he touches inbounds and is not touching OOB.

In football, a player who is not touching something OOB other than another player is inbounds.

The interpretation, that a player who has already established himself as being OOB can continue to affect a play by simply jumping into the air is ridiculous. The sensible and logical way to deal with this is simply to consider him OOB (whether he's on the ground or over it) which would simply make the ball dead when he touched it.

To suggest that a player who would catch a ball, while touching the ground OOB is somehow different than someone who has touched the ground OOB and subsequently jumps in the air is way to hard to explain and keep a straight face.

A player is inbounds until he goes OOB, and remains OOB until he comes back inbounds.

Do you have anything close to a rule or case play that substantiates this?

No I don't, do you have anything close to a rule or case play that refutes it?

My interpretation is based on reality and common sense, on what would you base arguing against it?

I happen to agree with some of the arguments posted on the links provided by waltjp.
1) A player must be either in bounds or out of bounds. There is no other possibility, there is no nebulous no mans land here.
2) The player intentionally left the field of play (he is OOB).
3) Once he leaps, he is by defintion no longer OOB because he is not touching anything OOB. So, if he's not OOB he must be in bounds.
4) I would ignore the leaping if it has no effect on the play, however in our op the player now legally bats the ball. But, he must by definition had to have returned from OOB. Which means we have a player intentionally leaving the field and returning, which is IP.
5) I particularly like this decision because it allows me to tell a coach that maybe comes up with this as a plan that it is not going to work the way he hopes.

Of course I can also see the reasoning behind just ruling it incomplete and moving along as a game management decision.

As a matter of fact I do have something that refutes your stance, the rule book.

FED 2-29 Out of Bounds

Art. 1
A player or other person is out of bounds when any part of the person is touching anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside the sideline or end line.

Art. 2
A ball in player possession is out of bounds when the runner or the ball touches anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside a sideline or end line.

ART. 3
A loose ball is out of bounds when it touches anything, including a player or game official that is out of bounds.

2-4 Catch

Art. 1
A catch is the act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds or being contacted by an opponent in such a way that he is prevented from returning to the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball.

A player is one of two things: in bounds or out of bounds. If he's touching (not touched, TOUCHING) something out of bounds, he's out. If he's not touching then he's in bounds.

If he steps on the sidelines and leaps and bats a ball he's gone out of bounds then back in bounds and participated, which by definition means he's had an influence on the play and by 9-6-1 he's committed IP.

Until they come up with a definition of inbounds you can't come to any other conclusion but he's in bounds when he's not touching out of bounds. Redding's in (b) is wrong.

Just went through this whole discussion again.

http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=5202.0

Sorry Walt, what you have is only your interpretation of what you perceive the rule book says, which defies common sense, logic and reality. We all should understand that the verbiage used doesn't always precisely cover any and all possible intepretations of what is intended by any rule, and that common sense and logic, to keep sanity in perspective, have to be considered when the verbiage fails to relate to any specific instance.

Kd5; your interpretation of what you read in the rule book, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Just to keep this subject straight, we're NOT talking about someone who is inbounds, leaps over the sideline and touches (redirects) a live ball before ever becoming OOB.

This question relates, specifically, to a player who has already rendered himself OOB, and while OOB leaps up into the air. You are suggesting that, somehow, this act of leaping into the air from an OOB position, miraculously, returns the player to an inbounds status. Forgive me, but this assessment makes absolutely no sense, has no basis is logic, common sense or anything related to the flow of the game.

We all should agree that when a loose ball is touched by a player who is "standing" OOB, it becomes dead. What would be the purpose, the objective, of a rule that allowed an (already) OOB player, who is not legally able to participate or interfere with play UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES to regain that capability by simply jumping into the air?

Why then should this ridiculous interpretation be the least bit credible?

As has been attempted, thus far unsuccessfully, how would any official logically explain that the player, who has been rendered OOB, somehow becomes inbounds again by virtue of simply jumping into the air, while OOB? I'm sorry, but the answer, "because it (or you think it) says so" doesn't get the job done.

When your own judgment tells you that your interpretation makes no common sense and can't be logically explained, the problem is likely your adherence to a bad interpretation.

Al, it's not perception - it's right there in black and white. In at least three places 'out of bounds' is defined with the word 'touching'. Additionally, a catch is defined as 'establishing player possession' and 'first contacting the ground inbounds'.

Nowhere in the rule book or case book is it suggested that a player needs to re-establish his position inbounds after touching out of bounds. If you can find anything so support your own personal interpretation I'd be happy to consider it.

And once again you produce pages of shuck and jive without the slightest hint of any rule reference to back up your position.

2-29-1...A player or other person is out of bounds when any part of the person is touching anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside the sideline or end line.

Note it doesn't say "has touched". It says "touching". Please cite the rule that says a player who steps out of bounds has "rendered" himself out of bounds even when he's not touching out of bounds. I've cited the rule that says he's OB if he's "touching". Let's have yours. Rule ______.

Now, if he's touching then he's OB and if he isn't touching then he's got to be inbounds. There is no other status a player can have is there? He's in or he's out, period. He's out when he's "TOUCHING" (not has touched, "TOUCHING" with an -ing, touching, again referencing Rule 2-29-1). There's my first rule citing. Let's see yours. By the way, rules are listed in the book with hyphens such as 9-6-1 and 6-3-1.

9-6-1...Prior to a change of possession, or when there is no change of possession, no player of A or K shall go out of bounds and return during the down unless blocked out of bounds by an opponent. If a player is blocked out of bounds by an opponent and returns inbounds during the down, he shall return at the first opportunity. There's my second rule citing.

So how did he return? He "returned" when he left the ground and batted the ball. It doesn't matter where he is when he leaves the ground. When he leaves the ground he is no longer "touching". And by batting the ball to A87 he has had an influence on the play. This is called "participation". 2-30...Participation is any act or action by a player or non-player that has an influence on play.. There's my third rule citing. Let's see yours.

9-6-1 is called Illegal Participation. It's a live ball basic spot foul. Now here's what I predict you will do. You are going to compose a seven paragraph fiction telling me what I think I read is wrong and that my logic is not as good as yours and what you know is right and you don't need to cite any rules because we should all know you know. Come on, I dare you, cite rules to back up your position.

Walt, I understand what the rule book says, and what is says is that for a player to become OOB, he needs to touch OOB, and I have no problem with that. Nowhere, that I can find, does it state or even suggest that to remain OOB, that touching must be constant.

On the contrary, the notion that by somehow leaping up into the air, after establishing himself as being OOB would somehow automatically revert his status back to being inbounds, just doesn't make a lick of common sense nor offer any reasonable logic that follows the general flow of any rule regarding being OOB.

People who are OOB are not supposed to participate in the game, participation is reserved for those who are inbounds (legally). That's not rocket science. I think we all agree a player is either inbounds or OOB. There's no mystery associated with this, or shouldn't be.

If a player is (touching) OOB, he's OOB and his touching a live ball, kills the ball. That's crystal clear and makes perfect sense. If a player goes OOB, then returns inbounds (under the wrong conditions) he comits a foul if he subsequently participates (interferes with) in the play. The logic is clear, when you're OOB you can't play and if you touch the ball, you kill it.

How does reversing this logic and concept make any sense by suggesting, a player (who has clearly established himself as being OOB) can somehow reestablish his status as being inbounds by simply jumping into the air (while OOB).

Trying to apply Illegal Participation to a situation like this seems way too harsh, because the vast majority of situations is simply someone trying to make a play and inadvertently, accidentally or even deliberately stepping on a line. Why would the rules want to provide this ridiculous advantage?

Logic, common sense and the written rule dictate that a live ball touching a player OOB is a dead ball. What possible difference could it make whether that player is still touching the ground or jumping above it when he touches the ball?

If ever there was an example of reading way more into a rule than was ever intended, this has to be it. When something doesn't make ANY SENSE it can't be right.

Forgive me Kd5, but I've tried to avoid "show me yours and I'l show you mine" arguments" since about when I left 3rd grade, so I may be a little out of practice. I appreciate your coaching me about using hyphens, rather than periods, to list rule references. Old habits are hard to break and I'm really happy you were able to follow along despite this grand transgression.

My father advised me long ago, "Never argue with a fool" and when I've ignored that advise I've always regretted it.

One of the wonderful things about officiating is that, on the field, we get to do pretty much whatever we like, whenever we like. Of course the other side of that coin is that we are held totally responsible, and accountable, for everything we choose to do at an extremely high standard.

You get to choose to follow your logic, and I sincerely hope you never have to try and explain that choice on a field, and I get to follow what I see as rationaland logical and have no worry, whatsoever, about explaining or justifying my choice.

Citing rules is always important and good practice, because it provides opportunity to constantly refresh our knowledge base, but understanding the rule, it's meaning, it's function and it's purpose may even be more important than memorizing the words. I'd reference the same rules you have, the only difference being I look a little deeper than the exact sequence of words and am guided by common sense as to how they should be applied.

You might try opening your mind and thinking about why what you read may have been written. That's something they may not cover until 4th grade, so be ready for and good luck with it.

Not true.


I've explained my logic using rules, specifically 2-29-1, 2-30 and 9-6-1. You've again failed to cite ANY rules to back up your argument. All you've stated is that "our interpretation of what we perceive defies, common sense, logic and reality" yet it's walt and me who've cited concrete, specific rules and you haven't. I'm not sure who's going to have a tougher time here. I'm going to pull out the rule book and point to these rules. What are you going to do, say "What possible difference could it make whether that player is still touching the ground or jumping above it when he touches the ball"?

That's the problem with you. You apply your own logic to rules that are written, as walt said, in black and white, plus it's me who's cited rules, not you.

So if you aren't trying to show me yours, why the put downs and references to grade school? I've opened my mind. I take the word "touching" to mean that he is in the process of being directly in contact with the ground. What more can be applied or what more common sense can be used to interpret the word "touching"? If he's touching then he's out of bounds and by opening up my mind I glean from it that if he's not touching then he must be inbounds. If he's standing at the 50 on the logo and jumps in the air he's inbounds. Not that tough. Please cite the exact rule that says a player, once he steps out of bounds, stays out of bounds no matter what he does after that. I've cited the rule that says he's inbounds if he's not out of bounds. Let's have yours.

I'll give it one more shot, Kdf5. I would cite the same NF: 2.29.1 and NF: 9.6.1 to support my assessments. I don't have a problem with the language of either rule to support a logical and rational interpretation. My problem is that I believe your insistance on focusing on your restricted and limiting interpretation of "touching" is simply ridiculous and makes no sense.

You seem bound and determined to insist on a new definition of "inbounds", that I suspect the rules makers would think totally unnecessary given the current definition, and understanding, of OOB. NF:2.29.1 clearly states a player is OOB is touching anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside the sideline or end line".

The rule does NOT say, suggest or infer anything remotely along the line that once OOB, to remain OOB, requires constant touching to the ground. Probably because such a statement would be insulting the intelligence of anyone reading the rule.

Similarly, NF:9.6.1. states "no player shall go OOB and return during the down unless blocked OOB by an opponent". How you conjur up that after being OOB, jumping up in the air (while still OOB) somehow equates to actually returning inbounds is simply beyond my comprehension. The rule you are so adamant about citing, says nothing to support your conclusion.

Neither you, nor Walt, have cited a single example supporting your theory that makes any common sense or logic. You are both hung up on the tense of a single word that you have decided is limiting to the extent it renders the entire rule as foolish.

You are free to, "take the word "touching" to mean that he is in the process of being directly in contact with the ground", but expanding it to infer that any subsequent detachment from the ground somehow reverses the status of being OOB and automatically restores the player's status to be inbounds is just silly.

When you suggest, "If he's touching then he's out of bounds and by opening up my mind I glean from it that if he's not touching then he must be inbounds, my only advice would be to reboot your mind and open it again. Perhaps my reference to grade school is a byproduct of all my "shucking and jiving".

2-29-1...A player or other person is out of bounds when any part of the person is touching anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside the sideline or end line.

Since the NF hasn't defined inbounds but has defined out of bounds then there's no other conclusion but to say he's in if he's not out. What other status could he have? Again, I ask you to cite a rule backing up your conclusions and the fact is, you can't. Why is it that my literal use of the word touching is wrong but your contentions are accurate? Give me rules to back up your contentions.

You said: "This question relates, specifically, to a player who has already rendered himself OOB, and while OOB leaps up into the air. You are suggesting that, somehow, this act of leaping into the air from an OOB position, miraculously, returns the player to an inbounds status. Forgive me, but this assessment makes absolutely no sense, has no basis is logic, common sense or anything related to the flow of the game." Please cite for me the rule that says once he renders himself out of bounds he stays out of bounds even though he's not touching. You can't. All you have to go on is YOUR interpretation. I have the rule.

You also said "Trying to apply Illegal Participation to a situation like this seems way too harsh". Well let's say A83 steps on the sideline, jumps in the air, bats the ball and A87 takes it to the house. If you don't flag this then who's received the harsh treatment? Or turn it around. B intercepts and takes it in and you call it an incomplete pass. Now who's paid the price. I've got rules to justify my IP flag and take away the score or let the score stand. You've ignored the rule and applied your own rule. All you have is your interpretation yet I'm wrong and you're right? Time and time again I've backed up my position with the rule book and time and time again you've not posted one rule to back up yours. The beauty of the rule is that it doesn't require your interpretation so why do you insist on interpreting it?

Come on now fellas lets think about this. Now lets assume that rather than being just out of bounds (OOB), the player goes and sits in the stands, the bandshall, on the track or down by the goal line. The QB launches the ball to the OOB player wherever he may be. At the perfect moment the OOB player jumps up and bats the ball to his player who takes it in for a score. Ridiculous? Yes? Legal? Call it how you want. I have a whistle and an incomplete pass.

This is the problem with a code based on an all inclusive set of rules. Rulemakers that try to cover everything in a code find that it is not possible. The limitations in our language and multiple interepretations make it impossible. Thus gaps remain. Efforts to fill the gaps often create more problems. We have seen this recently with the new rules carrying penalties to the kickoff (and the resulting problems when the score occured on the last timed down of a half). In the American judicial system the "gaps" are filled in by "the common law". The common law employs ideas of morality and common sense. Sounds like this is a gap.

But we aren't talking about a player in the stands. We are talking about one who's stepped on the sideline then batted a pass out of the air. Remember, Reddings (if we can use them as an arbiter) says the ball stays live after he leaps in the air and catches it (a) or bats it in (b). My disagreement is that he should be flagged in both plays, not just (a).

You are perfectly free to do what you think is correct, Kdf5, regardless of what I suggest, understanding that you will have to accept whatever consequences your interpretation brings. I'm willing to accept and deal with whatever consequences my interpretation may bring.

However, all your repeating that "the rules" support your interpretation is absolute and utter nonsense. There is no rule that addresses how, what or why a player who goes OOB remains OOB, which cuts both ways so there is no specific language supporting your contention either.

You are entitled to your interpretation of what limitations use of the word "touching" entails, and I simply do not agree, or accept, your litteral interpretation, which I am fully entitled to do.

I've learned, over a relatively long period of time, when there is no specific reference to some unique situation, applying common sense and basic logic is a much more practical approach to finding a workable solution than trying to force some obscure explanation, that cannot be logically and plainly defined.

You do as you choose, and I'll follow my instincts, but stop deluding yourself that your position is directly supported by rule. It is not, not even close.

Well then, what do you do if said OOB receiver leaps near the sideline and swats the ball away from an inbounds B who is about to intercept the ball? You still have an A who has gone OOB, he still has merely leaped and not returned, so must still be OOB per your "ruling" and therefore all you have is an incomplete even if it prevents a B from catching the ball. Or does the reasoning change according to how the play works out and by what rule do you justify a changing ruling depending on the outcome of the play?

Al, you conveniently ignored rule 2-4, the definition of a catch, which states that a catch is completed when player gains possession of the ball and first touches inbounds. Nowhere does it say that the player must have first established his position inbounds.

I happen to see the logic with AJMC statements.
You have someone that runs OOB and then stands there and jumps up and down. So his status changes each time he leaps into the air?
Even though the rule says that this is correct, this defies logic.

To me you are making a mound out of a mole hill. So the reciever leaps, big deal, what if he had not leaped?
I assume you are trying to say that the reciever leaping stopped B from a int. Well if the same play had happened and the reciever did not leap then it still stopped B from an INT.
I am not saying you are incorrect, I am just saying there are ways to stop the INT without the leap. IMO-(not supported by rule) this is confusing.

I don't think he'd he changing a rule -

A is running down the sideline and steps out of bounds. The ball comes his way and, seeing B may intercept, A swats the ball away. He is out of bounds when he does this and may or may not realize it. He doesn't jump and he doesn't return in-bounds. All you have is an incomplete pass. There is no IP or anything else - the ball touched an out-of-bounds player and it's dead. If he jumped in the air as he did this, there would be no difference. It's just an incomplete pass.

Any luck with those rules?

One point in this discussion I think needs clarification -

If A 1 is running down the sideline and steps out of bounds and then catches the ball or bats it away from inbounds B1, that touching is not IP. See 9.6.3 - A1 is not a "replaced player, substitute, etc. He retains his status as a player (2-32-1). He can catch or bat the ball (both actions would cause the ball to become dead) but are legal moves. His "interference" in the play is not illegal participation. The only way A1 can be guilty of IP is if he returns inbounds.

What is it with you guys? Why all the focus on what rules DON'T SAY?

Why must it be necessary for any rule to specifically mention something that is painfully obvious should never happen? The rules don't prohibit snipers shooting balls out of the air, but it's not likely any competent official would be confused about what to do if that happened.

Are you suggesting the rules actually need to specify that someone is prohibited from leaping on to the field from OOB, so we know that wouldn't be "a catch"? The proper application of ANY rule is dependent on the common sense and judgment of the person given the authority to enforce it.

Both you and Kdf5 are trying hard to make a silk purse out of a sows ear, and it just can't be done. Your basic premise, is fatally flawed, because it makes no sense, serves no purpose. You can try and twist it, turn it, quote 65 other rules to try and mask it, paint it, dress it up or cover it up with perfume and it still just won't make any sense nor have any purpose. You're just wrong, accept that and move on.

Football rules are not designed, or intended, to have secret or hidden meanings, although sometimes they inadvertently create some. Do yourselves a favor and stop wasting your time and effort seeking obscure loopholes and hidden landmines. No rules code will ever cover every possibility, that's why common sense and logic in applying them is so important.

So I guess that's a no on your rule references.

Because it's not my job to invent rules to my liking. If the rules don't specifically prohibit something it's legal.

For reference you might want to check the discussions about a certain offensive scheme. A lot of people didn't like it for various reasons but conceded that it was legal under the current rules.

btw - the sniper scenario is just plain lunacy.

I'm not making a mountain out of anything. And I find there is an unfortunate feeling that anytime someone takes an opposite position to someone's post that it's either accusatory or insulting. I'm just trying to get someone to justify their answers by the rules for what they've posted and doing it by giving other examples of how the same "ruling" applies to a possible variety of situations. So far, all we've received is what some "think" is logical, but no real rule reference to justify the position. I've said before that if I have to rule on this situation in a "game management" manner, I'd probably just go with an incomplete. But we are in a rules debate here, and "feelings" that are contrary to what is clearly stated in the rule book don't amount to much.
For example, it appears the majority (which in fact may include myself in "real life") thinks it should be called incomplete. But consider the possibility of an A who is blocked out of bounds. He is allowed to immediately return and suffer no penalty. But say his return is done by leaping from OOB to in bounds to catch the ball and then land in bounds. Do you have an incomplete pass because he was OOB by the stated reasoning and never re-established himself in bounds until after the catch? Because it seems some are trying to say here he is OOB and therefor as soon as he touches it the ball is dead. Or does his OOB status change depending on where he lands? Where in the rules does it state his status changes (other than the possibility of an IP) between intentionally going OOB and being blocked OOB?

1) A1 goes out unforced by B and grabs the pass and:
a) returns first touching out of bounds:
Ruling -
i) Ball is dead
ii) No penalty

b) returns to ground in bounds
Ruling -
i) Ball remains alive
ii) Penalty for IP (for returning inbounds)

2) A1 is forced out of bounds by B and grabs the pass and:
a) returns to ground out of bounds
Ruling -
i) Ball is dead
ii) No penalty

b) returns to ground in bounds
Ruling -
i) Ball remains alive
ii) No penalty

[QUOTE=Mike L;595154]I'm not making a mountain out of anything. And I find there is an unfortunate feeling that anytime someone takes an opposite position to someone's post that it's either accusatory or insulting. I'm just trying to get someone to justify their answers by the rules for what they've posted and doing it by giving other examples of how the same "ruling" applies to a possible variety of situations. So far, all we've received is what some "think" is logical, but no real rule reference to justify the position. QUOTE]

A valid point, Mike. The reality is, fortunately or unfortunately, that there will never be rules that cover every possibility, and the only thing to guide through those situations is common sense, an understanding of the objectives of the game and it's rules and logic.

A lot of judgments we, as officials make are based on interpretations, some of which have been clearly codified and many that have not. It's likely that we can always conjure up an isolated example that will make just about any interpretation seem fuzzy. Officiating has never been, nor likely will ever be, an absolute science.

Sometimes theories or concepts that apply perfectly to other rules make sense when applied to different circumstances, othertimes not. Whatever ruling we are going to make should, however, make sense even though it can be disagreed with.

In the example you raise, basically the rule suggests that when a player is "forced" OOB, we should ignore the fact he's OOB. That seems to line up with the concept of contact by a player being blocked, or otherwise forced into what would normally be considered illegal or improper contact with an opponent or the ball, to simply be ignored.

You can "What if" these situations to death, but the basic approach seems clearly to be when something is "forced" treat it like it never happened. That seems to make sense, can consistently be applied, but I'm sure there are examples where it doesn't provide the perfect solution. Unless you want a 5,000 page rule book listing every conceivable exception and possibility, some decisions will remain pure judgment and comon sense, and nobody will ever bat 1.000.

Sometimes we can lose sight of the fact that we're talking about rules of a GAME, albeit a great game, an important game, but just a game. The problem is not that neither the rules, nor those of us who enforce them aren't perfect, the problem is that some delude themselves into thinking that perfection is attainable and therefore expected.

what if in your examples instead of grabbing (or what I think should be called "catching") he merely bats the ball? Does it still matter where he lands?

But ajmc, I'm not asking for rules to cover every situation because I agree with you there are some things that we must rely on common sense since there is no rule reference to go to. Such as the helicopter and sniper stuff that's been thrown out but doesn't really apply because for this question there is a rule reference. It's in the definitions under Out of Bounds. The rule may be poorly worded, may lack some clarity or is difficient, but it is there.
It appears there is a problem here precisely because of the "force out exception" for A or K and the rules makers either haven't thought of the possibilities, or simply have yet to figure out how to go about addressing the problem. How can we rule A's status of being OOB changes depending on whether he went out intentionally or if he was blocked out?

Yes, this is like Schroedinger's cat, the status of the ball is undetermined until A1 returns to the ground.

If he is forced out and leaps and touches the ball, it is:
Live if he returns to the ground inbounds.
Dead if he returns to the ground out-of -bounds.

I was with you there, for a moment Mike, but then you lost me. I have trouble with questions when they start mixing up. I don't know why you think the OOB's rule is "poorly worded", I'm sure well over 99% understand what it means and act accordingly. The problem seems to have been created by an obsession with the meaning of the word "touching" and taking it way beyond where it was ever likely to lead.

I admit I can't tell you, "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" any more than I can guarantee explaining the next several example that have yet to be made up, and will likely never (ever) happen.

I'm going to stick with my understanding that the rule makers want us to ignore just about anything a player may do, if he was somehow forced by an opponent into doing it. As for those "just about" exceptions, I'm willing to wait until I'm presented with one and let my judgment be guided by the situation and what makes sense regarding that situation.

Let me give you a question; On a field where a sideline is marked poorly, and there is an obvious bow in a section of the line. Is a player OOB when he steps on this obviously inaccurate line, or would he be OOB when he steps where the line should be?

Or an obsession with conjuring up a meaning to a word that has a definition. Any luck finding a rule to support your position?

Jim, I may be completely confused. But from what I have read on this thread (and I maybe wrong) is some are saying that if A goes out of bounds and then leaps up and bats the ball-then he is to be considered in-bounds.
I mean he either has to be OOB or IB.
So by his status being IB he has returned.
Or am I making this way way too hard.

No, you're reading it right. I just happen to disagree with that interpretation. If A is out of bounds and he jumps in the air, I still think he's still out of bounds. To say otherwise is not supported by the rules, and it just seems silly. Imagine calling A for having too many players on the field because one or more subs jumped in the air. They myst be either in bounds or out of bounds and, if jumping up makes them in bounds, well that just seems too silly to fly.

In the case you presented, I say it's a dead ball because the pass touched an out of bounds player. There is no IP on this play, just an incomplete pass.

I don't want to embarrass you Kdf5, but as I've tried patiently to suggest to you, that your ridiculous interpretation, and limitation of what "touching" represents is not spelled out or supported by rule either, except as how you are choosing to interpret it.

Don't be childish and try and sound smart by repeating the same question, which we both know cannot be aswered as you are asking.

In the absence of direct and specific supporting language to specifically address either point, I'm satisfied to rely on common sense and logic, what are you relying on?

I think we ned to bring in the Bob M. interpretation on the matter. :D

I do not personally see how the Rule 2 definition of being out of bounds can be interpreted in any matter other than by black letter of the rule. I have yet to see a rule or authoritative interpretation stating that a player retains his position once he leaves the ground. I am not trying to be contrary but if there is one, please share it with us.

:DWalt - I think I'm going to buy you about 10 beers at the Liberty Bell clinic and when you got a good "buzz" going I'm going to ask you about this thread and watch your reaction.

And, if I knew the other two guys I'd buy them 10 too. It would be worth the price of admission to watch three "buzzed" guys arguing this.

Cheers!

Before, during or after the clinic?

I think you'll find it right after the "authoritive interpretation" stating that a player loses or changes his position once he leaves the ground.

I take it then you don't agree with the Redding Guide and the letter of the rule?

I haven't personally read any Reddings guide explanation that is proported to suggest the interpretation alluded to it. If, however, there is such an interpretation that suggests a player who has established himself as being OOB, can remove or reverse that status by simply jumping up into the air, I would need a lot more explanation and consideration before I could accept it.

I absolutely disagree with your assessment that the "letter of the rule" supports such a contention, rather that this illogical conclusion is the result of an excessively limiting interpretation of what is intended by use of the word "touching" and the intent, and purpose, of the rule in it's entirety.

The first post in this thread contains the Redding play and interpretation that supports this.

As far as the actual wording of the rule is concerned, I don't know how "touching" can be any simpler and imply anything than the present tense of the verb.

With all due respect, it appears you are trying to make the rules fit your interpretation.

In regard to the "intent" that you mention in your previous post, you're not alluding to the spirit of the rule are you? ;)

I didn't realize the initial description was an exact quote. If it is, I don't understand how that conclusion could be correct.

The only thing I'm trying to match my interpretation to is basic common sense and my understanding of the object of this rule.

As for the selection of the present tense of a verb, I have no problem with it's usage, but I don't believe it includes, or implies, any requirement that the touching must be continuous to maintain the status, which the touching OOB creates, simply because that doesn't make any sense and seems unnecessary.

As for the "spirit of the rule", that's something you'd have to ask the rule makers to explain, to be sure of. I don't have access to them, so I'll have to stick with my own assessment of common sense and logic, although I can't seem to grasp any rational purpose or reason to include such a meaningless requirement.

Perhaps you see some purpose, objective, logic or reason, that makes some semblence of sense, that I don't and would be kind enough to share it with me.

Under NCAA, the receiver voluntarily going out of bounds becomes an ineligible receiver. Only eligible receivers may bat a ball. That HS and NCAA treat this play so much differently is bad. NFHS needs to harmonize its rules to NCAA in this instance.

Harmony would be nice, but the road from Damascus to Telaviv, is the same road as Telaviv to Damascus.

agree!

Never let the rule book get in the way of a good football game!
 

Unless of course you elect to completely disregard the exsisting road map! If you do, some feel you have a green light to create your own road...:cool:

Guys, Jim D's succinct interpretation is spot on. The key here is A went OOB on his own accord. He cannot renenter the game legally. I don't wish to rehash this thread as anyone following it knows whats what. Very interesting debate and interpretation. IF any of you disagree with Jim's interpretation I suggest you write a letter to the NFHS rules committee. I bet they interpret this just as Jim has. Happy officiating!

Never let the rule book get in the way of a good football game!
 

This was a very good thread. Hopefully it will develop into a Rule change proposal for consideration by the NFHS Football Committee in January of 2010.
JimD, BobM and others have provided some positive comments and sound reasoning for the committee to consider closing this loophole.
However, that being said, until such time as the Committee changes the current rule This play is legal and the interpretation in the Redding Guide IS correct! Under the current NFHS Rules this player is NOT (by rule) out of bounds. Additionally, for an official to manufacture an interpretation other than the current Redding Interpretation would be erroniuos and would NOT be supported by rule.

Many comments on this and another forums thread's have used words like untenable, illogical, sensible, common sense, spirit of the rules, gut feel, ect. These are all great words and thoughts however, the one problem is again, currently, there is no rule support for a ruling in this situation other than "Legal Play!"

Do I like it? NO!
Do I support it? YES! Of course, this play has rule book support and therefore it has to be legal!
To present a proposal for consideration to close this loophole (as long as it is well thought and would not cause any unintended circumstances) likely would be good for the game. To fabricate ones own ruling on this (or any other) situation would be foolhardy and a bit askew! Actions such as this by officials can NEVER be in the best interest of the game.

Rule references for this situation would include: 2-4-1, 2-29-1, 2 & 3, 7-5-5, 9-6-1 & 2!
And,
Again, since the action, did NOT violate any of the rules listed above, the play is currently, by rule, "Legal!"

We are required to officiate the rules by the rulebook. Someone suggested implementing 1-1-6. Unfortunatly, this would be an incorrect application of 1-1-6. Why? Simply because 1-1-6 is for utilization when a situation occurs that is not specifically covered in the rules. Like it or not, and as unfortunate as it may be, this situation IS specifically covered by the current rules as, the player, (by definition) is NOT (as much as we want him to be) out of bounds. :cool:

I won't argue with any of your suppositions, except that your conclusion still requires acceptance of an interpretation that, in my judgment, makes absolutely no sense and has no logical reason. In the rare circumstance that a player, who has rendered himself OOB, jumps in the air while OOB to touch a live ball, I'm going to consider the ball dead the instance he touches it.

I'm not disregarding any ruling, I'm simply enforcing a ruling that I believe is implied by existing rules and disagreeing with your conclusions. I am perfectly willing to accept any consequences that result from applying basic common sense and logic to interpret a rule that does not specifically address such an odd ( and specific) circumstance.

I just don't believe we're out there to enforce anything we agree isn't right, just because someone has suggested, "it says so". Sorry, may be willing to sell my soul, but not for something as trivial as this.

The 2008 Redding Guide contains the same play. Here is the next paragraph:

"In the preceding example, the receiver was not out of bounds when he touched the ball since he was airborne, and not touching out of bounds when he contacted the ball. He is, however, guilty of IP (9.6.1D 2003 Ed.) which is discussed in Chapter 10".

In the play he says (a) is IP and (b) isn't but in the explanation in the next paragraph I quoted above, he says "He is guilty of IP" but doesn't distinguish whether he's talking about only (a) or both (a) and (b). Maybe someone has the '03 Case Book? But in the meantime I think I will go with Rogers Redding and George Demetriou and their 70 yrs of experience.

It's not about giving up, or not giving up. I'm open to being persuaded that your assessment makes sense, just explain why it does, with something more than "because I said so", or that you or someone else thinks it says so.

With all due respect to the Redding people, "the receiver was not out of bounds when he touched the ball since he was airborne", just seems ridiculous to me and defies common sense, logic and the notion of rationality in the construction and purpose of any rule.

Don't get yourself all worked up about it, the chances of this actually happening are remote, but if they should repeat, we're both empowered to rule as we think we should. Either way, someone might just ask for an explanation. I'm comfortable in explaining my conclusion.

So if you're "open to being persuaded" then why is it that a "founding member of the Colorado Collegiate Football Officials Assoc. and President of the Colorado Football Officials Assoc." and who's authored a respected guide to the NF rules "makes absolutely no sense"? It seems to me that you're not open to being persuaded at all and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, period, and only because you say so.

Why are you getting frustrated and angry? You raised a point and asked a question and I've tried to explain my position as best I can. I'm not telling you you're wrong, I'm telling you I don't understand how your position can be right. If you're smart enough to convince me that your position makes sense, I'll certainly reconsider, but thus far you haven't even come close.

With all due respect to the, ""founding member of the Colorado Collegiate Football Officials Assoc. and President of the Colorado Football Officials Assoc." (and) who's authored a respected guide to the NF rules", suggesting that, ""the receiver was not out of bounds when he touched the ball since he was airborne", just doesn't light any lights for me. I didn't say you. or he, was wrong, I just don't see how that position could possibly be right and nothing you've offered thus far has been at all persuasive or convincing.

If you're ever confronted with this situation you can do what you think is right, and hope nobody asks you to explain why.

If you're ever confronted with this situation you can do what you think is right, and hope nobody asks you to explain why.

Why? What would be so difficult in saying, "Coach, by rule there is no foul because by definition the player was not OOB"? Enough said. Next play.
... and all it took was one sentence, not six paragraphs!

Knock yourself out Jaybird. If you're comfortable with that response, and can get away with it, that may be all you will ever need. It's when the questioner responds, "but we both saw him step on/over the side line before he touched the ball", that your explanation may get interesting, but I'm sure you'll be prepared to handle it with equal brevity.

Good luck.

See, there you go again. "hope nobody asks you to explain why". I think I'll be able to explain it a lot easier than you will. But like you said, it's probably never going to happen, you hope.

I don't know, Kdf5 offering,"When a ball touches anything OOB it's dead, and he clearly went OOB before he touched it", doesn't seem to leave a lot of room for additional discussion.

If there should be a follow comment about, "Wait a minute, doesn't the rule say touching.....", I'll rely on a response of, "That doesn't make any sense and is ridiculous" to end the conversation. That is, if it ever happens.

Never let the rule book get in the way of a good football game!
 

AJMC-
Consider this.
If you are a rule book guy, you almost certainly would have to agree that by definition (Rule 2-29) the player was NOT Out of Bounds. With all due respect, you continue to reach and search for a definition of an in bounds player however, unfortunatly, none exsists.
Additionally, you have formed a conclusion that if a player is not out of bounds he MUST then be in-bounds. Unfortunatly, as much as you want it to be, your conclusion is not the conclusion of and is in direct conflict with the current NFHS Rules Book.

And by the way, just because you "don the stripes" does not by any strech of the imagination mean you are: "empowered to rule as you think you should" as you have stated, rather, you are required to rule by the rule book.

Last but not least, for you to suggest Roger's and Georges ruling in the Redding Guide 'makes no sense" is silly. This play/action has been around for years, and the ruling is always the same and for the same reason. It is still referred to as Rule 2-29!

If you don't like the ruling, (which is abundantly apparrent) there is a process, draft a rule change proposal, (make sure dot all your i's and cross all your t's) and submit it to your state association for possible consideration by the NFHS committee next January. The NFHS is a grass-roots organization and you are most certainly empowered to submit any change proposal you like, but it must be signed off by your state.:cool:

-Kevin

The only additional discussion I would have with you is why not, like jaybird said, just follow the rule? It's their rule, not yours, so just blame the ruling on them and you're off the hook. The only thing that doesn't make any sense and is illogical is your insistence in making up your own ruling.

Kevin,

I wasn't going to post on this subject again, but I do have to disagree that "by definition, the player was not out of bounds".

The rule book does not give us the status of a player who is up in the air. It doesn't tell us if he's out-of-bounds, not out-of-bounds, in-bounds or neither-in-nor-out. If it did, we wouldn't be having this endless discussion. Based on a careful reading of the rules, we've come to various conclusions - all subject to our own interpretations. Everyone has made some excellent points, and I feel bad going against Reddings, but I'm comfortable with my interpretation (OOB, dead ball). You can keep yours (legal play) and others can keep IP if they want.

Never let the rule book get in the way of a good football game!
 

Jim D-

Hey Jim, please don't misunderstand, I don't like this any more than you do!

That being said:

The rule book most certainly and unequivocally tells us he is not out-of-bounds!
Rule 2-29-2 states: A player...is out of bounds when any part of the person is touching anything...that is on or outside the sideline or endline.

Therefore, until such time as you can get the federation to replace the wording "...is touching anything..." with ...has touched anything and has yet to return inbounds..." your interpretation (as much as you don't want it to be) remains incorrect.

Like it or not, based on the most currect rule book, Rogers Redding and George Demetrieau interpretation is correct!!! :cool:

Nuff said

-Kevin

Although Jim D has subsequently corrected your mistatements above, the smugness of you conclusions, seems worthy of a response. For the record, I absolutely disagree with your assessment that the language of 2.29 refutes my primary contention. Although I agree 2.29 could be rewritten to be more specific, and perhaps inclusive, I do not find it's meaning at all difficult to include the simple notion that once a player goes OOB, he is OOB until he subsequently becomes In-bounds.

Long ago, I reached a general conclusion that all of the rules of football each have some purpose, some objective, some reason related to the fair and equitable playing of the game. Unfortunately, some rules are not written as consicely or clearly as they might have been, but I am convinced there is logic, reason and purpose for every rule.

At times, not nearly enough for some, rules are subject to modification and further explanation, but I do not believe the intent of any rule is to be needlessly silly or counterproductive nor our rules makers deliberately try and confuse or mislead interested parties.

I do believe the rule makers value the judgment, common sense and the understanding of fair play and the intent of the game field officials employ to enforce each rule as it was intended. Although I've repeatedly asked for some evidence of ANY logical purpose, ANY hint of common or practical sense, or ANY rational reason to explain why a player who has already gone OOB, could somehow retain, or temprarily regain, an In-bounds status by simply jumping up into the air, none has been offered.

I understand the logic and rational of why a player is considered "different" when he goes OOB, because it's simple, logical and makes perfect sense in relation to the flow of the game. The game of football is not rocket science, not the difference between guilt or innocense in a capitol trial nor is it intended to be.

Each rule must have a purpose, an objective, that makes sense to the operation of the game. My limited comprehension ability fails to uncover any possible purpose, any rational objective, any logic, any contribution to the flow of the game that your interpretation, of this rather simple rule, would provide.

As I've previously suggested, reasonably politely, as officials we ARE absolutely empowered to make rulings as we believe they are intended to be made, and we are fully accountable for all decisions we render. If you are comfortable rendering a decision you are not capable of explaining in terms of basic common sense and logic, rather than reason the purpose of the rule because of an obscure interpretation that defies common sense and logic, that's on you.

As stated previously, if you can offer some additional purpose, reason, objective or benefit to the flow of the game that your interpretation offers, I'll be willing to reconsider my position.

Never let the rule book get in the way of a good football game!
 

AJMC & Jim D -

I suggest you present this particular play to your respective State Rules Interpreters. In fairness, I suggest you present them with both the AJMC/JIMD interpretation along with the Rogers Redding/George Demetriou iterpretation.

Then provide us all with your SRI's individual interpretations.

The results should make for some interesting forum reading.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I probably won't bother them. This has been more of an "it's April and there isn't much else to discuss right now on the board" arguments. I've worked a long time, and I've never seen or heard of this play happing in a game, and I don't expect to in the future. If it does happen, I'm comfortable with calling it incomplete.

I've seen the arguments for several possible calls, and all are well thought out, equally plausible and equally justified. I honestly don't think there is a "right" answer to this under the rules as they are currently written.

Never let the rule book get in the way of a good football game!
 

AJMC-
I have two "resonable polite" questions for you:
1) I am wondering if you as of yet have "empowered yourself" with the opportunity to discuss this play your State Rules Interpreter and thus garner your states official interpretation to determine if it refutes or supports your assesment in regards to what you have claimed an "obscure interpretation" which defies common sense, logic, reason, good judgment and understanding of fair play, even though the interpretation was made by Rogers Redding - Chair of the NCAA Rules Committee?

2) In the extremely remote chance your state SRI should support Rogers Interpretation, will you retain your belief you are "empowered to make rulings as your believe they are intended to be made" even when they directly conflict with your SRI albiet all in the name of Truth, Justice, and the American Way?

Please be advised even with my limited comprehension my primary contention remains to garner a general conclusion absent of any smugness. :cool:

Please advise...


Knowledge is good! - Emil Faber ;)

No, I don't see any need to bolster my understanding of something I'm perfectly comfortable about. Especially because someone who hasn't been able to muster up any sort of rational argument to support or explain a position I believe is simply foolish, assigns me to.

Actually, I think your "primary contention" is to try and make yourself sound smarter than you actually are, which by the way you are dismally failing to accomplish. Part of that is that you selected a really dumb topic to get all worked up about, and I suspect part is a problem with your ego.

It seems it's you who have trouble with your interpretation. If you need help to bolster your position, and feel it worthy of the effort, knock yourself out. I don't accept work assignments from people who can't explain themselves. If you do choose to pursue this issue, see if you can find out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, will you?

Never let the rule book get in the way of a good football game!
 

I stand corrected!
For those of you who sent me Private messages telling me I am wasting my time even responding to this guy, you were right, I was wrong. And, as one of you so eliquently coined a conclusive phrase that most certainly bears repeating:

AJMC is a Legend in his own mind!

-Nuff Said :cool:



"Knowledge is Good" - Emil Faber ;)

Now, Do you feel better? It's too bad neither you, nor those who sent you private messages, saw this as an opportunity to simply explain your position, provide any semblence of common sense or logic that would lend credibility to your position, or logically refute any explanations I tried to offer.

I asked for your reasoning, besides, "someone else told me that's what the words mean (as least as they choose to understand", which really doesn't say a whole lot to defend your interpretation. Especially after you, and maybe even some of those who sent you private messages, acknowledge that even though your interpretation doesn't make any sense, you're going to go with it anyway.

I agree "Knowledge is good" but you also might consider, "Knowledge has no value until you use it, or share it". Thus far, you've chosen to do neither. Barking about it doesn't count.

don't mean to dredge anything up, but I was reading older threads.

PLAY: A22 is running a sweep. He fumbles forward, the ball bounces in bounds, crosses the sideine in the air. B55 (who'd started legally on defense but is now standing OOB) bats the ball backwards to teammate B50. Dead ball. Team A gets it at the spot of the fumble.

But if B55 has the presence of mind to JUMP just before he bats it, it's Team B's ball then? (If so, I"ll have to file this one away, b/c I'm sure that before this thread I'd have ruled that the ball was touched OOB and therefore dead.)

Follow up question: even though he's in the air beyond the sideline, is B55 still governed by the same rule about batting a loose ball? That is, if he he bats it forward, is it a penalty? [ncaa rules]

It's the same arguement as above. If you think he's inbounds by rule, treat it the same as if he were standing in the middle of the field. If you think he's out of bounds, rule it that way. When he jumps, I say he's out of bounds but other say he's inbounds. Pick which one you're comfortable with and go with that.

Doesn't seem much room for interpretation here. A player who last touched the ground inbounds but is in the air above the sideline is inbounds.

I agree on that. Howeve, the substance of the thread was the status of a person who is out of bounds (after having touched the ground out of bounds) and then jumps in the air while still wide of the sideline. Is he in, is he out or is he neither? There are plenty of arguements to review and consider in the six pages of responses.

Ah. See your point.

Well, "you are where you were till you get where you're going." He's out until he's not, and being in the air isn't sufficient to change his status going either direction.

Just because you are NOT OOB does not mean you are inbounds!
 

While many feel the need to belabor the point, the rule book remains silent on "inbounds" and as such, their is no definition of an inbounds player. However, there is a clear definition of when a player is out of bounds, and this definition is only applicable when such player ...IS TOUCHING ANYTHING.... (As per 2-28-1)
Some have formed a conclusion that a player must be inbounds if he is not out of bounds. This conclusion is incorrect. The player in the OP did not meet the definition of out of bounds as per 2-29-1. Therefore he is simply NOT out of bounds and nothing else.:cool:

Wouldn't argue with your above statement, but that's NOT the problem. The problem, causing all the agita, is the interpretation that a player who has clearly stepped (stomped or laid down) out of bounds (OOB), on his own, can somehow revert back to NOT being OOB, by simply jumping up into the air, even though doing so while remaining outside the field of play, and therefore can legally participate in play from his airborne position, because while in the air, he's, "not touching anything".

I agree with KWH on this. The NF has a definition for out of bounds player, but no definition for inbounds player. For a player to be out of bounds, the rule states that the player must be touching something that is out of bounds (other than a player or an official). An airborne player cannot be out of bounds by this definition. Maybe he should, but that would be for the rules committee to decide, not us on an individual basis.

Alf-
We all clearly understand your point, and I am beyond certain however you will repeat it 7 more times! However, the play in the OP and the play in the Redding Study Guide were discussed at the NFHS Rules Interpreters Meeting in Indy on July 14th. These plays are legal as the player involved was not, by definition, out of bounds!
If you need further clarification, you should contact your association and/or state rules interpreter.

Nuff said!

Not quite! I wasn't at the meeting in Indy, and no word has come to us nor have I seen anything in print in any official publication relating to this play. It may or may not have been discussed in any number of meetings, but until the NFHS talks about it, all we have is the rule book and hearsay.

The rule as written, published and disseminated, does not define the satus of such a player. Until that changes, the question is open for interpretation.

I'm glad you finally acknowledge you comprehend, "my point", although I'm not so sure you actually do. Had you just ONCE offered some semblance of logic as to why your position makes any basic common sense, whatsoever, or tried to explain some rationale to support your position, I may have been more persuaded to consider your position as being serious. Considering you inability, or refusal, to do so I 'm still unable to accept your premise.

I was merely trying to be polite in answering, what seemed like foolish and naive questions, you insisted on asking repeatedly providing you with the benefit of the doubt as to the seriousness of your position. That was before I concluded you were more interested in spouting off, than contributing anything of value to the issue.

Thankfully, living in this great land of ours we are each free to follow what we believe to be correct, including unsanctioned interpretations and opinions whether they be supported by common sense and logic or because someone else told us to, despite lacking any common sense or logic. As long as we accept all consequences for our choices, those choices are entirely ours to make.

Never let the rule book get in the way of a good football game!
 

Alf-
The interpretation I have presented is that of the NFHS!
In theory, that should be sufficient for every one of your requirements.

As for your opinion that, "...we are each free to follow what we believe to be correct...As long as we accept all consequences for our choices, those choices are entirely ours to make. I say stick to your guns Alf! History has shown us that attitudes such as this have a way of greatly shortening the period of time a person with such an attitude is allowed to masquerade in an officials uniform!

That is one opinion on this subject. Another opinion is that no rule, of any sport, would intentionally or deliberately be in direct conflict with common sense, logic and the basic tone of the game.

Sorry, but I don't agree that the rule (NF: 2-29-1) requires the contact, that caused a player to become OOB to be constant, and continuous, for that player to remain OOB. I understand and agree that an airborne player does not become OOB until he touches something (including the ground) OOB, but once he satisfyies that requirement and becomes OOB, his subsequent jumping up into the air is not going to change his status.

That's what I mean by logic, common sense and the basic tone of the game.

Sorry, jaybird. I know this post has gone on way too long, but the whole issue is not supported by either rule or logic which is why we have this whole arguement.

If the player who jumps is not out of bounds (and I understand that logic since he's not touching anything out of bounds) the question remains, "what is he"? Here the rule is silent. Presumably, he's either inbounds (and guilty of IP) or he's in a state of not out-of-bounds or not in-bounds. The rule does not tell us which it is, and logic would seem to say he must be in if he ain't out so we have a flag. That's as valid an interpretation as any other I've seen. I don't think the rules makers ever envisioned an neither in nor out state so I can't see how this play could be legal.

You are welcome to your view and I'm fine with it, but the rule as written leaves it open to interpretaion. There is no "right" answer as yet, and the NFHS is silent on any interpretaion.

Redding guide - Illegal Participation
 

Guys:
I have enjoyed this discussion on this illegal participation but I know one of the coaches in our area, who reads this forum, is probably incorporating this play into his playbook already! <g>

So I went to the source to get some guidance. I emailed the author of the Redding study guide on this issue. I don't have permission to quote the email, so let me explain the gist of what he said in terms of our discussion.

The assumption some here have made that a player is either in bounds or out of bounds is not correct. There is a third state - call it a transition state- and this "void" in the rules is intentional because not to have it creates other problems. (I can't give further details cause I don't know any, so don't shoot the messenger!).

Anyway, the Redding Guide is correct and option B is a legal play as long as the player doesn't catch the ball and land out of bounds. Weird, but there it is. (and I hope that coach doesn't read this thread this far! or if he does, when I ask him in pregame if he has any unusual plays, he'd better confess).

-Raider

Appreciate your efforts, but if "author of the Redding study guide" is either unwilling, or possibly unable, to explain or possibly defend his, "transition state" hypothesis in clear and understandable language, that makes enough sense that I can subsequently explain it to someone else, I'm not buying it, sorry. If you want to accept something, you can't fathom, as gospel, without understanding it, that's your option.

When someone can't (or won't) explain, or defend, what they're trying to sell, it's usually a valid warning that should give pause about buying. As for your coach, should he run some trick play past you before the game, you might advise him, "Thank you, here's how we going to rule on that today" and then explain your understanding of the rule to him, and how you will enforce it.

Alf-

One simple question:

1) Can you please explain why, the NFHS continues to defy any sense of logic, common sense and the basic tone of the game by annually refusing to change the wording of Rule 2-29-2, from ...is touching anything... to something like perhaps ...is or has touched anything... as you, in your opinion, so desperatly intepret it to read????


This seems like such a simple fix. There must be some blatently obvious reasoning! Please share with us some of your insight and wisdom that the rest of us commoners so apparently lack! After all, if you can't (or won't) explain, or defend, what you're trying to sell, it's usually a valid warning that we should give pause about buying your interpretation.

Thank you in advance