Took 7 months for me to ask??

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Mike L

It would if one would not insist on injecting one's own interpretation of "fairness" into the definition and just accept it the way it is written. There are a few violations that clearly state intent is required (intentional grounding, kicking, batting, etc). Blocking violations are missing from that list.

I doubt you understand this Mike, but "injecting one's own interpretation of "fairness", into the mix is largely the primary reason we are out there to begin with. If you need to demonstrate your superior command of the language of the rules, to the nth degree, you can do that, but likely few will be really impressed with your recollection skills.

"Blocking" as described in articles 2 through 9, of section 3, rule 2 defines what actions arepermissable and those which are not. Although "intent" is not specifically indicated in any of these definitions/instructions, it is certainly implied that the act of blocking is, actually, a deliberate action taken by a player,directly against an opponent.

If the intention of the rules makers was to prohibit inadvertent contact between opposing players, we'd likely have definitions for "bumping into" and have appropriate penalty for "illegal bumping into".

Sometimes, some things really don't need to be spelled out. Perhaps that's why so much of our job is related to judgment.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I doubt you understand this Mike, but "injecting one's own interpretation of "fairness", into the mix is largely the primary reason we are out there to begin with. If you need to demonstrate your superior command of the language of the rules, to the nth degree, you can do that, but likely few will be really impressed with your recollection skills.

Maybe I'm too stupid to understand that. Then again, maybe I do understand that with the "standard" this proposes chaos insues because there is no longer any set of definitions or rules because they all get altered by the individuals interpretation or what one feels is fair.
This doesn't take some superior grasp or command of the language. It merely takes an ability to accept the rules as written and interpreted.

[ajmc]

When common sense is applied reasonably, it rarely creates chaos. It's when you try and stretch logic way beyond what it was clearly intended for, things tend to get murky.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by ajmc

When common sense is applied reasonably, it rarely creates chaos. It's when you try and stretch logic way beyond what it was clearly intended for, things tend to get murky.

Fair enough. But common sense tells me if you have a specific definition or an accepted interpretation, one can only make things "murky" by altering it to fit ones sensibilities.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Fair enough. But common sense tells me if you have a specific definition or an accepted interpretation, one can only make things "murky" by altering it to fit ones sensibilities.

Indeed...such as "out of bounds".

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Indeed...such as "out of bounds".

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Indeed...such as "out of bounds".

Exactly, really stupid is going to stay really stupid no matter how you try and rephrase it or dress it up. I presume you are referring to the REALLY dopey notion that a player, who has established himself as being OOB, can somehow lose that designation by simply jumping up in the air while OOB.

Sorry Welpe, dumb doesn't get any smarter as it ages.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Exactly, really stupid is going to stay really stupid no matter how you try and rephrase it or dress it up. I presume you are referring to the REALLY dopey notion that a player, who has established himself as being OOB, can somehow lose that designation by simply jumping up in the air while OOB.

Sorry Welpe, dumb doesn't get any smarter as it ages.

Nor does it get any smarter by simple volume. Especially when attempting to prove one's point by using an apples to orange comparison. On one hand we have a clearly defined rule regarding blocks. On the other, we also have a clearly defined rule regarding what makes a player OOB but nothing regarding what it takes to be regarded being back in bounds. Two entirely different situations on how the rules have been written and how they should be interpreted.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I presume you are referring to the REALLY dopey notion that a player, who has established himself as being OOB, can somehow lose that designation by simply jumping up in the air while OOB.

FED Case Book (2002)

9.6.1 Sit D

Wide receiver A1 runs a pass route along the sideline. He takes two steps out of bounds and goes airborne. While in the air he: (a) bats the ball to A2 who catches the ball; or (b) catches the ball and lands inbounds; or (c) catches the ball and lands out of bounds.

Ruling:

In (a) and (b), the ball remains live and the catch is legal. A1 was not out of bounds when he touched the pass, however, he is guilty of illegal participation in both (a) and (b). In (c), the ball is dead and there is no catch or foul. (2-4-1; 2-28; 4-3)

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Maybe I'm too stupid to understand that. Then again, maybe I do understand that with the "standard" this proposes chaos insues because there is no longer any set of definitions or rules because they all get altered by the individuals interpretation or what one feels is fair.
This doesn't take some superior grasp or command of the language. It merely takes an ability to accept the rules as written and interpreted.

I bet you apply this distinction all the time, maybe without realizing it, w.r.t. pass interference by team A: distinguishing between a player's route that deliberately gets in a defender's way, and one that accidentally does so.

Robert in the Bronx