Took 7 months for me to ask??

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Are you suggesting your earlier assessment that, "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.", is not a recommendation for reliance on an enforcement based on a generalized technical assessment of semantics rather than one based on evaluation of a specific observation?

If you wish to take it out of the context of it being the answer to your "I wouldn't think the most liberal interpretation would include any player stumbling around (and genuinely) inadvertently contacting an opponent." But whatever works for you, go for it.

[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]

[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.

[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.)

[KWH]

Alf-
You are right! I tryed to forget!
Gentlemen, there is one guy who when he does not agree with the Rules Book, continues to make up his own interpretations. And guess what Alf, that one guy is you!

Many of us are fully aware you have completley crushed your soapbox in by jumping up and down on your "the status of a player can not change by simply leaping" slogan. While you have most certainly convinced yourself you are correct, the problem remains as that darned Rules Book still gets in your way and fails to support you. You continue to ignore the definition of OOB based on RULE 2-29-1 and 9-6-2, which, dad-gum it, continues to prove your theory as false! However, for reasons know only to you, you prefer to summize your own interpretation, albiet because you have justified it in your own mind, within which, you are certainly a legend!

2-29-1 defines one thing Alf, how a player can be out-of-bounds. It is black and white, A player can only be out-of-bounds or he can not be out-of-bounds. And because there is no definition for an in-bounds player, therfore, in as much as you can't stand it, an airborne player can NEVER, by current definition, be out-of-bounds!

Bottom line: The Rules Book continues to support the experts interpretation while dispelling yours.

But hey, before you get your panties in a wad and wear out your typing finger out responding, remember, the NFHS is a grass roots organization, if you don't agree with the current rules and/or interpretations from such experts as Rogers Redding and George Demetriou you should propose a change. It is quite simple really, all proposals need to be submitted prior to November 1 for the committee to consider in January, but it must be signed by your State Office. (That might be tuff!)

In summary, until such time as you can support your personal interpretation with the Rule Books like say, Rogers R, George D, and others can, I suggest you don't go away mad, rather, you just go away!

And remember Alf, "Never let the Rules Book get in the way of a great football game!" shall remain as your slogan.

[ajmc]

Despite all your empty bluster, KWH, you never seem to try and explain, much less justify, your (dare I say, silly) interpretation of NF: 2-29-1, other than declaring your perception must automatically be correct, "becuase (in your opinion) it says so". I don't think it "says" what you think, at all.

Despite a long history of, somewhat indelicate verbiage being selected to explain various issues, I repect the NF Rule writers efforts in trying to establish rules that are relevant, make sense to the game of football and overall follow a pattern of basic common sense. I realize their job is not an easy one, given all the verbiage experts that are so quick to offer criticism.

My interpretation, of the relatively simple rule you choose to read otherwise, is simply that, as the rule states, ""A player or person is out of bounds (OOB)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."

I understand that person only becomes OOB when he touches OOB, meaning that someone leaping from inbounds to OOB would not be considered OOB until he touches OOB. However, I don't see where anything says, or even hints that such touching must be continual to maintain the OOB status. That appears to be a conclusion you have somehow arrived at, which thus far has defied explanation.

So I ask myself, "Why wouldn't it say that"? My conclusion is that such an observation is so obvious, actually stating it might be considered offensive to those whose message the rule is intended for. Consider, NF: 2-34-1 defines "player possession", but doesn't seem to necessitate adding that such possession exists only so long as it's continual, because that also seems really obvious to anyone who has the barest understanding of the game.

With all you bluster, sarcasim and failed attempts at humor, you have never disputed that your contention, which amounts to someone who has already clearly established himself as being OOB, can lose that status by jumping up in the air, makes absolutely no common sense, serves no recognizeable purpose as related to the game of football, or on the contrary, needlesslessly contradicts a basic premis of the game, that players are either in bounds, or OOB. Football rules, in general, tend to be either/or, black/white, yes/no situations, which would seem to carry over, and make sense when related to, inbounds/OOB.

Perhaps, I'm just not smart enough to grasp the logic, some benefit, or any rational reason of an interpretation, such as yours, serving any purpose or reason, whatsoever.

This would be a perfect opportunity for you to educate me, or at least offer some semblance of logic to persuade me to recognize some reason, some logic, some purpose for arriving at such an interpretation, as yours, to help me accept it and considering it credible. Any help you can offer will be appreciated.

[KWH]

Alf-
In NFHS football there is no definition of INBOUNDS in regards to a Players status. Yet, you keep returning to the conclusion that a player has to be INBOUNDS or Out-of-bounds. Why? The rule book does not support your conclusion.

Do I like the fact that it is technically LEGAL for a player to intentionally go out of bounds, stand there, wait for a pass, leap into the air, bat the pass to a team mate and then return to the ground OOB just so long as he does not return to the field. NO I DO NOT!

Is this action legal under the current 2009 NFHS RULES. Unfortunatly the answer is YES.

Is their a fix? Perhaps
Consider this rewording of 2-29-1 using NFHS lingo
2-29-1...A player or other person is out of bounds when any part of the person has touched anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside the sideline or end line, and, shall retain out of bounds status until the person has touched anything, other than another player or game official that is inside the sideline or end line.

Now, while this wording certainly fixes our play does it cause unitended circumstances?
Can you think of a reason or play that this would not work? Why? Because thats how you get a rule changed. You have to dicect the living fa-jesus out of it until it can not possibly cause any unintended circumstances.

So, Consider a play where a B or R player is running down the sideline, 1 foot in, 1 foot out, etc.

Think about it!

[ajmc]

Sorry, KWH, but I simply do not accept your "opinion" that, " it is technically LEGAL for a player to intentionally go out of bounds, stand there, wait for a pass, leap into the air, bat the pass to a team mate and then return to the ground OOB just so long as he does not return to the field.".

The rule does not state, imply or hint that it is necessary to remain in continual contact with the ground, or any other object or person, OOB to retain being OOB once having satisfied the requirement of "touching" someone or something OOB. That is a presumption you have invented despite it's having nothing to do with the rational operation or conduct of the game.

That presumption is totally counterintuitive and serves absolutely no practical, or beneficial, purpose. The current rules clearly separate a player being OOB, from not being OOB by common sense going so far as to clearly establish that a player who has gone OOB, unless as specifically authorized, cannot return inbounds legally (Illegal Participation).

Could the rule be written better? Probably. Does the simple fact that the current verbiage can be manipulated into an extreme interpretation that makes no sense whatsoever mean that everyone is required to accept something that is absolutely ridiculous? No way, unless of course someone personally decides to follow an illogical path, in which case they accept the consequences of choosing to do so.

Although it is not a requirement that an official agree with every rule interpretation they understand must be enforced, it is appropriate that an official understand the logic and purpose of interpretations they must enforce, beyond, "because someone has opined it says so". Each of us has to judge whether an extreme interpretation is actually valid or is merely an excessive exaggeration that serves no purpose, nor offers any benefit to the orderly management of the game.

Those are decisions each of us must make individually, and for whatever it might be worth, I'd advise staying away from unique "interpretations" that defy rational explanation and make no sense. Being "unexplainable" is a road sign pointing to a bad destination.

[waltjp]

It's the gift that keeps on giving.

[KWH]

Originally Posted by waltjp

It's the gift that keeps on giving.

Kind of like a COSTCO hotdog, of which, you continue to belch up the taste 3 hours later!

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by KWH

Kind of like a COSTCO hotdog, of which, you continue to belch up the taste 3 hours later!

I thought they only served those at ball parks.