Quote:
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.