Took 7 months for me to ask??

[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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Mike L

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.

You really need to lighten up, Mike, this may be really hard for you to grasp, but there's no "debate", there's no winning or losing of anything. There are different approaches, some that work better for some, not so with others. You seem a lot more interested in semantics and declaring yourself "right" than even considering approaches that may differ from yours, or expand your perspective.

I acknowledged, clearly, that the word "intent" is absolutely NOT a part of the definition of "Blocking", however it should be painfully obvious that "intent" is a (one of many) factor that is usually inherent to the act of blocking. Over the long history of the game, players bumping into, brushing, even colliding into each other inadvertently or accidentally has ALWAYS, largely been ignored.

As with most things we deal with and judge, there is ALWAYS the potential for exceptions, and those are best determined by the experience and competency of the covering official, not some arbitrary interpretation of words that can be twisted to suggest something contrary to the function of the game.

Understand, Mike, it's impossible for me to make you "look bad", that is something only you can do and rigid insistence on overly technical interpretation, based on semantics, at the expense of functional application is a great way to do it.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by ajmc

You really need to lighten up, Mike, this may be really hard for you to grasp, but there's no "debate", there's no winning or losing of anything. There are different approaches, some that work better for some, not so with others. You seem a lot more interested in semantics and declaring yourself "right" than even considering approaches that may differ from yours, or expand your perspective.

I acknowledged, clearly, that the word "intent" is absolutely NOT a part of the definition of "Blocking", however it should be painfully obvious that "intent" is a (one of many) factor that is usually inherent to the act of blocking. Over the long history of the game, players bumping into, brushing, even colliding into each other inadvertently or accidentally has ALWAYS, largely been ignored.

As with most things we deal with and judge, there is ALWAYS the potential for exceptions, and those are best determined by the experience and competency of the covering official, not some arbitrary interpretation of words that can be twisted to suggest something contrary to the function of the game.

Understand, Mike, it's impossible for me to make you "look bad", that is something only you can do and rigid insistence on overly technical interpretation, based on semantics, at the expense of functional application is a great way to do it.

Yeah, I know you have no ability to make someone look bad. But maybe you don't grasp the concept that when you throw into the discussion things like "If you disagree with that assessment, and feel compelled to penalize every technical infraction you are completely authorized to do so." with absolutely nothing I have said that comes close to that poorly disguised back handed comment, you have indeed tried to make someone look bad. It's an implied accusation that I call every technical infraction, which I think any even somewhat experienced official takes a dim view of. But if that tack is what you have to resort to, knock yourself out.
Sure, you admit intent is not part of the definition, but you seem to force the concept into it when you are on the field apparently to meet your sense of fairness. Me, I'm not that complicated. A block is a block. Intent of the block is not consequential according to the rules. If a player happens to stumble because it's slippery or he trips over his own feet or he's just plain clumsy and falls into the knees of an opponent, I just determine if the block rises to the level of a foul. You seem to want to consider his intent as well and I don't think you have any rule or interpretation support to do so.

[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.

[KWH]

Originally Posted by waltjp

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.

We are in agreement. And, the problem with the 2002 case play, is, in the ruling it states A1 is guilty of Illegal Participation, which, is not supported by rule. Restated, if A1 never returns inbounds, he can not, by rule, Illegally Participate. Therefore, the ruling in (a) should have been "Touchdown".
But then we all know and agree on these points.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by KWH

Therefore, the ruling in (a) should have been "Touchdown". But then we all know and agree on these points.

Not quite everyone. The 2002 Case Book ruling may suggest that the result would be a TD, but that ruling no longer exists. It may have well been removed for the reasons you presume, but it is just as likely it was removed because the Case Book editors gave the item some thought, realized it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and is clearly contradictory to one of the basic objects of the game (That the game is played by players within the confines of the playing field and that a player who has taken himself out of the game should not be able to influence play, especially by something so silly as a player being able to change his status of being OOB, attained by virtue of his stepping OOB, by simply jumping up into the air.)

[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.