With regards to Alf and his way of thinking, all I can say is...
 

You can lead a horse to water...
...but you can't prevent him from taking a massive dump in the water trough.

Actually, KWH, I've been wrong before and I've pretty much accepted the possibility that I may very well be wrong again, maybe even a number of times. When I've been proven wrong, however, I always make sure understand why.

I've tried to state my position as clearly and concisely as I can, understanding that there might be more than one perspective to consider. Thus far, all I recall hearing from,you and others who share your position, is that your position must be right, because you have concluded that the written rule supports your conclusion and there are others that share your opinion. As I've stated, I disagree and think your assessment is simply unfounded and excessive.

Additionally you have chosen to add stuipd, juvenile "one liners", I presume you think are funnyto divert the discussion, but nothing that even attempts to defend or even explain some level of logic to support or defend your position. You seem willing to accept that part of the discussion that states your position makes absolutely no practical sense whatsoever, but insist that such a position, illogical and out of step as it may be, be followed anyway.

At best, this scenario is an obscure possibility to begin with, but if you can't muster up even the slightest reasoning or justification to support your position, why would you expect me to be impressed enough to accept it?

If I accept the responsibility of being able to enforce something, I require being able to explain my reasoning for doing so. If I can't undertand, or have it explained to me, why I should enforce something, I won't.

If you are planning to rely on the quickness of your wit to assist with possible explanations, after having seen some examples of it, I would strongly suggest you work on getting better material and shoring up your presentation skill, you're going to need help.

REPLY: Just get a simple definition of INBOUNDS, determine whether INBOUNDS and OUT OF BOUNDS are 100% mutually exclusive and complementary, and then tweak the definitions of each to match the best intentions of how these types of plays should be ruled. KWH's 'new' OOB definition is a start and is not unlike the basketball definition, which seems to work there.

Are you suggesting that Inbounds and Out of Bounds are not universally recognized currently as being mutually exclusive?