Took 7 months for me to ask??
 

During a game, our OL doubled the DT. In the process of this, one of our lineman slips and unintentionally hit the already engaged DT in the knee area. A plenalty was thrown, but when we asked the white hat who threw the flag what happened, he said the line man slipped and unintentionally hit the kid. Is this still a flag? Thanks

Was your OL already contacting the defender when he slipped or did he slip during his charge resulting in his initial contact being with the defender's knee? If it was the latter I say it's a good flag. Safety trumps slipping.

Nothing in there about intent, so an "accidental" chop block is still a chop block.

Like so many things we see in a football game, you have to actually see what happened to determine whether it was legal or not. The "Chop Block" definition does not mention intent, but it does require there has to be a "block", which doesn't necessarily include any type of contact.

Football players bump into each other all over a football field in ways that never quite make to the level of being a "block". So although a "chop BLOCK", may always be a chop BLOCK, that doesn't mean every contact between two players constitutes being a "block" of any sort.

Thjat's why it's so important that we see the entire action, not just the tail end of it. From the way this situation was described, it sounds like the White Hat's internal review system overruled his initial response and he corrected himself, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

If I accidentally clip you, its still a clip. If I accidentally jump the snap count, its still a false start.

Some fouls don't have mitigating factors. Sounds more like he was letting the coach know so as not to chew his player's butt for the foul, as much.

It makes no difference whether it was intentional or not, the defender could have still been injured: which is why the rule exists. Flag.

Gentlemen, with all due respect, acknlowledging and agreeing that a "clip" is always a "clip" and a "chop block" is always a "chop block", does NOT mean that every type of contact, including that which may be incidental, forced or otherwise not measuring up to the definition of a "block", with an opponents lower extremities, is automatically either a clip or a chop block, nor automatically, merits a flag.

One of the most basic and overriding aspects of officiating is that one should see the entire action to determne if any mitigating circumstances might have been in play that would prevent the action from being designated as a foul.

That's why I pose the question. I never argued the fact that a penalty was called, but I asked because the white had called a chop, but then told me it was accidental because he said the player was going to drive the DT up the field, he lost his footing and blocked below the waist.

Another "basic aspect of officiating" is when asked a question about a play you didn't see, keep your response to the letter of the rule, rather than try and address the possible slant applied to the question.

As others have suggested, intent is not a factor in any of the rules under discussion, however what you may recall being told may, or may not, exactly reflect what the official intended to impart to you. How that particular play may have been called reflects specifically what that particular official observed on that particular play.

Apparently, based on his final action, he did not consider the contact he observed to constitute a "block" below the waist or the low end of a chop block. If he believed there was some initial contact with the opponent prior to slipping and falling low that would likely affect his judgment as well.

According to NCAA umpires I know, if a backside guard reach blocks low on a defender who engages into the front side center whose intent is not to block him, but reach block himself, it is still a chop block. We can not judge intent.

Here is a good example of needing to get the description as exact as possible.

In your first quote you say they were involved in a double team and the lineman slipped low.
In your second quote you say the lineman was going to block and slipped low.

(Note: I only know NCAA - FED might be different).
There is an important distinction here, since the rule says the INITIAL contact needs to be below the waist.
If the lineman was involved in blocking high, and slipped low, I would say no penalty - but one might come out if the official only saw that later part of the action.
If the lineman was trying to block and slipped and made the first contact low, I have a penalty. Intent is not part of the rule, only the contact.

Actually, it DOES matter, though I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your opinion here as its based on the OP play. On that one, obviously, you'd have to see it, but the key question is: did the offense gain an advantage? Yes = flag; no = pass on it.

However, if it is clearly unintentional you are more likely than not to pass on the call. Here's an example that happened in one of my games last year: sweep or pass play to the flat, offensive lineman out there blocking and ends up face down on the ground (no foul involved). Right behind him is his teammate who's engaged with a defender and they both trip over the guy on the ground, who might have been in the process of getting up (I didn't actually see this). Chop block? No way, even though by definition, it fits (and the fact that the coach is yelling for it).

You apply advantage/disadvantage to a chop block call?

I didn't say that it did. But intent is NOT an issue. Most players don't intend to grab a facemask, but that doesn't mean it's not a penalty.

The referee was there and he disagreed with you. That's why he threw the flag.

A chop block is a safety issue. It has nothing to do with advantage/disadvantage.

I think it does. It's like the insanity defense. Sure, the act was committed, but punishing it wouldn't deter anyone in a similar position from doing it.

The penalty doesn't make anyone more safe after the fact, only as a deterrent to doing it, either deliberately or negligently. In the case of the player face planting on the ground, possibly getting up, and participating unintentionally in what fits the definition of a chop block, it would do no good to the game to penalize it if the team derived no advantage from it and it was accidental -- not only accidental in the sense of unintentional, but accidental in the sense that it couldn't've been avoided by a reasonable modification of anyone's playing style or assignment.

In the original case, where a slip resulted in a low block, you might judge that the positioning and blocking assignments of team A could be chosen to produce a lesser or greater chance of an accidental chop block by such means, which would give a reason to penalize if one occurred. In the face plant case where the engaged players stumbled over him, no way.

Robert in the Bronx

"The referee was there and he disagreed with you. That's why he threw the flag".

That's not what I understood at all. Unless I missed something, the referee threw a flag had n opportunity to reflect about it, then changed his mind.

Apparently he didn't go through the formality of waving the flag off, which would be appropriate mechanics wise, but he changed his assessment.

I realize the suggestion is "the referee said" it was because the player slipped making the contact, but considering memories are often not exactly what we choose to remember tham as, I'm going with there simply was a change in assessment.

As has been repeated, intent is not a prerequisite of something being a chop block, but it's somewhat difficult to imagine an action, that was not intended to be a chop block, somehow actually turned out to be one.

Is a player who, actually, falls into the rear of an opponent clipping him? (empasis on the word actually). Is every contact made with an opponent from the rear, below the waist a clip? I don't think so, because even though a slip and inadvertent fall into the back of an opponent can cause the same, if not more, threat and damage as a deliberate and intentional clip, it's just not the same thing and I doubt would be called under most circumstances.

Intent is not mentioned as a requirement for certain fouls being certain fould but in most instances it does enter into the decision thought process for an official deciding if the behavior is prohibited by rule.

Well, like the death penalty, the PF penalty is not a deterrent but a punishment for a wrong doing. In the world of officiating football, personal fouls are "felonies" and accidental or not, should be penalized when they occur.

No, that's ridiculous if you think about it. It applies to cases where an advantage is gained by means contravening the rules, provided the advantage can be negated by the penalty, but it would be silly to apply such a standard in a game for a safety issue alone. The penalty does nothing to help in the case a player's knee ligament is injured. It's not as if the penalized player has to kick in for the medical bill or something. When it comes to safety, the only reason for a penalty is as a deterrent.

Welpe's assertion would be even stranger as applied to the personal foul of butt blocking. The penalty is there as a deterrent against a player's endangering his own neck. What good would punishment do in such a case? It would only add insult to possible injury.

Robert in the Bronx

You're confusing 'punishment' with 'compensation'.

Why can't a penalty be both punishment and deterrent?

Good point, I suppose a penalty can be both. I now see that flaw in my argument.

That said, I do not think advantage/disadvantage should be applied to a safety related foul such as chop blocking.

It can be, but it isn't in all cases, and if you're distinguishing punishment from compensation then there is no reason for official punishment in a game, because it's just a game. In languages where the words for punishment and penalty are the same, this distinction does not exist, but in English the words have subtly different meanings.

Robert in the Bronx

On the contrary, I think it's the only good way to apply the penalty as a deterrent in cases like this.

There are situations sometimes related to safety where advantage/disadvantage is not involved, i.e. where a player just does something hotheaded to an opponent, without hope of producing an advantage. Such is not the case here.

There would be no rule against chop blocking were chop blocking not effective in the game, as it was proven to be for many years. Because it is effective, teams are motivated to use it. When it was decided that this move was too dangerous to be allowed to continue to be used, the rule was adopted.

As has been explained in this thread, there are situations that fit the definition of chop block but which no reasonable mode of play could be adopted to avoid. It is easy to see that no advantage would be gained by a player who simply falls and is trying to get up, while opposing players who are engaged happen to sidestep into him. Whether there were a penalty for chop blocking or not would have no bearing on the actions of the first player which led him to face plant, because he had no motivation to do so. So it would be useless to apply penalties in such cases.

The situation might be different in the case of the adjacent players reach blocking in the same direction. Such a blocking scheme may be adopted with the knowledge that it could sometimes produce a chop block that was not assigned but could be reasonably expected to occur in certain cases. In that case the existence of a penalty against chop blocking could be expected to figure into the team's preparation and the players' actions on the field, which might be modified to have a greater chance of avoiding a chop block.

Robert in the Bronx

Let's agree to disagree on this one. As an official, if I pass on an obvious chop block because I felt there was no advantage gained, I will be downgraded by my association. This is how I have been taught and that is what is expected of me.

Trying to use the "Advantage/Disadvantge" umbrella to describe this topic may be the cause of confusion. I don't think there is any (or at least much of an) argument over whether a "chop block", or other safety related personal fouls, should be called regardless of the Advantage/Disadvantage factor. However the issue seems to be more about dealing with contacts that, although perhaps satisfying a technical terminology of a foul, don't measure up to the official's perception of what actually constitutes a particular foul.

Our role is best targeted for an ability to recognize bad behavior, that happens,and apply the proscribed penalty for exhibiting it, rather than seeking borderline infractions that may only approach a level of behavior in a loosely defined technical manner.

I agree.

Three possibilities with a chop block (or any foul, really):
1. Intentional
2. Negligent
3. Unavoidable accident

In my experience, the vast majority fall under (1), and the vast majority of the remainder fall under (2). Both deserve a flag.

If the tiny percentage under (3) draw a flag, well that's a shame, but the rules don't permit an exception.

Up-thread you mentioned that the definition of "chop block" in the rules includes the undefined, but understandable, word "block", and IIRC the player who face planted and was getting up could cause contact without being said to block. I think this does introduce either an intentionality or advantage factor into the judgement.

Quite a while back I asked whether, under rules similar to Fed's but either prohibiting BBW altogether or restricting it to the immediate line charge, one should be judged to have BBW by deliberately sprawling in front of one or more opponents, as in the "shoe shine" or "Superman" block, and waiting for them to trip over you. (The "shoe shine" gets its name from the instruction given a down blocking TE to give his C a quick shoe shine, i.e. dive with your hands landing near his feet. By doing so you can sometimes delay 2 opponents from penetrating on the back side. The instruction includes a subsequent back roll into the opposing line, but for purposes of the example we omitted that part of the move.) The answer was yes, because even though the opponent was moving and the blocker was stationary, the blocker intended to produce the contact and the blocker's team would gain an advantage by doing to. If that's a BBW, what's the difference between that and the face plant example given in this thread? The criterion must be intent and/or advantage. The face planter did not intend to be blocking the opponent who stumbled over him, and his team could not have expected to gain an advantage, or they didn't get an actual advantage, by his face plant.

Robert in the Bronx

Sorry Robert, you're getting way too deep into this for me to keep up. I'm afraid what we do is not rocket science and no matter how complicated we may try and make it, it's not going to become rocket science.

As for your, "shoe shine" block, as it is with so many things we do, you just have to see (with your own eyes) the action to really determine if someone did something you perceive to be improper and/or illegal.

If so, you have to determine whether the action rises to the level of being flagged, or may be better handled with a subtle word of caution or advice. There are precious few absolutes and each game, each play and each situation are unique and should be judged on what is actually observed.

Competency in our work is not measured either by how many, or how few, flags we throw. The objective is to flag each and every action that merits a flag, and deal with any other actions that fail to merit a flag judisiously and maturely without unduly interrupting the flow of the game.

True in varsity ball, maybe so in JV ball. At Reserve or Freshman level, I think (2) tends to outnumber (1), and even (3) might outnumber (1).

REPLY: "Block(ing)" is most certainly defined in both the Fed and NCAA books and the concept of intent isn't mentioned.

Although the NF definition of blockin (NF: 2-3-1) simply states, "Blocking is obstructing an opponent by contacting him with any part of the blocker's body.", I wouldn't think the most liberal interpretation would include any player stumbling around (and genuinely) inadvertently contacting an opponent.

It's not unusual that attempts to examine the specific language of a rule, when applied to a universal context, creates more questions than provides answers.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

Well then, I guess it's a good thing we can each do the job the way we believe it's intended to be done. I must admit, I do tend to consider a "sense of fairness" in my understanding of how the rules, in general, are intended to be interpreted and applied, as they relate to the actual workings of the game.

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.

A little history
 

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"

:)

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.

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.

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.)

Gentlemen, Start your engines!
 

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.

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.

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!

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.

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! :rolleyes:

I thought they only served those at ball parks.

With regards to Alf and his way of thinking, all I can say is...
 

You can lead a horse to water...
...but you can't prevent him from taking a massive dump in the water trough.

Actually, KWH, I've been wrong before and I've pretty much accepted the possibility that I may very well be wrong again, maybe even a number of times. When I've been proven wrong, however, I always make sure understand why.

I've tried to state my position as clearly and concisely as I can, understanding that there might be more than one perspective to consider. Thus far, all I recall hearing from,you and others who share your position, is that your position must be right, because you have concluded that the written rule supports your conclusion and there are others that share your opinion. As I've stated, I disagree and think your assessment is simply unfounded and excessive.

Additionally you have chosen to add stuipd, juvenile "one liners", I presume you think are funnyto divert the discussion, but nothing that even attempts to defend or even explain some level of logic to support or defend your position. You seem willing to accept that part of the discussion that states your position makes absolutely no practical sense whatsoever, but insist that such a position, illogical and out of step as it may be, be followed anyway.

At best, this scenario is an obscure possibility to begin with, but if you can't muster up even the slightest reasoning or justification to support your position, why would you expect me to be impressed enough to accept it?

If I accept the responsibility of being able to enforce something, I require being able to explain my reasoning for doing so. If I can't undertand, or have it explained to me, why I should enforce something, I won't.

If you are planning to rely on the quickness of your wit to assist with possible explanations, after having seen some examples of it, I would strongly suggest you work on getting better material and shoring up your presentation skill, you're going to need help.

REPLY: Just get a simple definition of INBOUNDS, determine whether INBOUNDS and OUT OF BOUNDS are 100% mutually exclusive and complementary, and then tweak the definitions of each to match the best intentions of how these types of plays should be ruled. KWH's 'new' OOB definition is a start and is not unlike the basketball definition, which seems to work there.

Are you suggesting that Inbounds and Out of Bounds are not universally recognized currently as being mutually exclusive?