Took 7 months for me to ask??

[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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Mike L

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.

Mike, I'll be honest with you, I'm really not interested in wasting your time, my time or anyone else's arguing with you about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I wasn't trying to compare apples to oranges, and didn't bring the subject of OOB into the discussion.

I don't have any problem with the verbiage or common interpretation of the blocking rule, I was merely suggesting that not every type of contact, even though the contact may actually, or inadvertently, serve to create some type of obstruction, automatically constitutes a "block". Of course that is entirely dependent on what a covering official actually witnesses.

If you disagree with that assessment, and feel compelled to penalize every technical infraction you are completely authorized to do so. Please feel totally free to ignore anything I may suggest as an alternate or interim solution to, what is a purely hypothetical situation, and is merely intended to highlite the flexibility we are all empowered to exercise in our judgments.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Mike, I'll be honest with you, I'm really not interested in wasting your time, my time or anyone else's arguing with you about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I wasn't trying to compare apples to oranges, and didn't bring the subject of OOB into the discussion.

I don't have any problem with the verbiage or common interpretation of the blocking rule, I was merely suggesting that not every type of contact, even though the contact may actually, or inadvertently, serve to create some type of obstruction, automatically constitutes a "block". Of course that is entirely dependent on what a covering official actually witnesses.

If you disagree with that assessment, and feel compelled to penalize every technical infraction you are completely authorized to do so. Please feel totally free to ignore anything I may suggest as an alternate or interim solution to, what is a purely hypothetical situation, and is merely intended to highlite the flexibility we are all empowered to exercise in our judgments.

There never was anything to do with dancing angels, fruits or anything else you try to use as a smoke screen. And your attempts to "win" the debate by throwing out something I've never said as my position on technical infractions is, quite frankly, a pathetic attempt to make me and/or my postion look bad.
The original, and really only subject, has been your contention intent is part of the definition of "block" and mine that it is not. Or, that in "my world" the intent of how the block was done does not necessarily relieve the blocker of the chance for foul while you seem to think it does. Maybe I'm wrong about your position, but I don't think so from what you've posted.
Of course we all have flexibility to exercise our own judgement. But I don't think we have flexibility to alter defintions of words or actions to suit ourselves. In this profession, our flexibility lies only on whether the actions rise to the level of their becoming a callable foul.

[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)

[KWH]

Waltjp-

Yes, that play was in the 2002 Case Book. However, the play was subsequently removed from the case book as it was incomplete.
Why? Simply because it did not specifiy what A1 did after he batted the ball. Because, if A1 returned inbounds after the "Legal bat," he would indeed have committed illegal participation. However, if A1 remained out of bounds after the "Legal bat" there is no rule book support for any foul being committed, as, again, for Illegal Participation to be committed, the PLAYER would have to "Return" inbounds.
Restated, there is no foul which prevents any PLAYER from going out of bounds and not returning. See 9-6-1 and 9-6-2
Additionally, 2-29-1 defines when a PLAYER is Out of Bounds. In the 2002 Case Play A1, was not, by definition, Out of Bounds, when he made the "Legal Bat"

[KWH]

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by KWH

Waltjp-

Yes, that play was in the 2002 Case Book. However, the play was subsequently removed from the case book as it was incomplete.
Why? Simply because it did not specifiy what A1 did after he batted the ball. Because, if A1 returned inbounds after the "Legal bat," he would indeed have committed illegal participation. However, if A1 remained out of bounds after the "Legal bat" there is no rule book support for any foul being committed, as, again, for Illegal Participation to be committed, the PLAYER would have to "Return" inbounds.
Restated, there is no foul which prevents any PLAYER from going out of bounds and not returning. See 9-6-1 and 9-6-2
Additionally, 2-29-1 defines when a PLAYER is Out of Bounds. In the 2002 Case Play A1, was not, by definition, Out of Bounds, when he made the "Legal Bat"

I don't disagree with you at all. I've stated in the past that it was not a foul if A1 didn't return inbounds, but that's not really the reason for the post. This case play explicitly states that A1 is not out of bounds.

For the record, I'm sure this case play was also in the 2003 case book. The entire section on Illegal Participation underwent a major re-write for 2004.

[ajmc]

There has been quite a bit of revised thinking about the Illegal Participation foul since 2002 creating significant modifications and adjustments in both rule book and case book in attempting to explain the possibilities clearer. Unfortunately, the current sequence of Case Book plays; 9.6.1.a-d doesn't discuss anything remotely related to the 2002 play mentioned.

Perhaps that play was one of the ones reconsidered and eliminated.