Brain teaser

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Then why is it IP in a & b but not c? It would appear that, without exactly saying so, they meant for the sorts of action in both a & b to be considered a "return", i.e. either batting the ball back into play or physically returning to the playing area. The ruling implies that merely being off the ground is not "returning".

I will agree that being up in the air is not the same as being inbounds. But I also have to accept the fact that being up in the air is not out of bounds either, because of the OOB definition we should all know by heart by now.

Clearly, the determining factor between this particular instance being a dead ball or IP is determined by where the receiver ultimately comes down, at least in the case of (a). If he comes down inbounds, then and only then is he "inbounds," thus the ruling of a legal catch and ultimately, IP. In (c), because he comes down out of bounds, then he is . . . well, out of bounds and thus, the dead ball. In (b), because he was up in the air, he is neither in or out, which most closely matches the OP presented here.

In the OP, because he was not out of bounds when he touched the ball, the down cannot be blown dead. Also, because he had been out of bounds, he could not legally touch the pass, so when he did, even though he was neither inbounds or out of bounds, he committed IP, because he obviously participated in the play. As has already been proved in this discussion, a player does not have to be inbounds to illegally participate in the play, so we don't have to make up a rule to put him inbounds when in fact he is not.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by BroKen62

Somebody help me with this - is there any reason why this interpretation is not still binding on the situation? I changed my position based solely on the fact that this OFFICIAL interpretation was given in the NFHS casebook, and according to what I've read and others have written on this topic, there has never been anything to reverse this interpretation. That being the case, is this not precedent (proof) of the way the powers-that-be intend for officials to apply the rules to this particular situation? Not trying to stir up trouble, just trying to understand.

Originally Posted by BroKen62

I will agree that being up in the air is not the same as being inbounds. But I also have to accept the fact that being up in the air is not out of bounds either, because of the OOB definition we should all know by heart by now.

Clearly, the determining factor between this particular instance being a dead ball or IP is determined by where the receiver ultimately comes down, at least in the case of (a). If he comes down inbounds, then and only then is he "inbounds," thus the ruling of a legal catch and ultimately, IP. In (c), because he comes down out of bounds, then he is . . . well, out of bounds and thus, the dead ball. In (b), because he was up in the air, he is neither in or out, which most closely matches the OP presented here.

In the OP, because he was not out of bounds when he touched the ball, the down cannot be blown dead. Also, because he had been out of bounds, he could not legally touch the pass, so when he did, even though he was neither inbounds or out of bounds, he committed IP, because he obviously participated in the play. As has already been proved in this discussion, a player does not have to be inbounds to illegally participate in the play, so we don't have to make up a rule to put him inbounds when in fact he is not.

b. also matches how I'd like the play ruled in the case of the player of R who goes out of bounds and then reaches back into the field to make K's free kick dead and out of bounds.

In the case of the pass play, I suppose ruling IP in a & b but not c satisfies an intuitive sense of "participation", but it still allows team A a second bite of the apple in the example given of sending receivers beyond the end line to jump and bat the ball back, forcing a repeat of the down to prevent a TD catch.

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

b. also matches how I'd like the play ruled in the case of the player of R who goes out of bounds and then reaches back into the field to make K's free kick dead and out of bounds.

In the case of the pass play, I suppose ruling IP in a & b but not c satisfies an intuitive sense of "participation", but it still allows team A a second bite of the apple in the example given of sending receivers beyond the end line to jump and bat the ball back, forcing a repeat of the down to prevent a TD catch.

I admit it's a good interpretation of a bad rule that needs to be changed. IMHO, a player who has been OOB should have to reestablish himself/herself inbounds by touching inbounds (ala basketball). Alas, until such a thing happens I guess we are stuck with this.

[cmathews]

I do understand your reasoning...but this isn't basketball, so why should the rules be the same...are we also going to require the ball carrier to start dribbling...the rule is the rule...it isn't hard to understand, there is no reason to change it.....

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by cmathews

I do understand your reasoning...but this isn't basketball, so why should the rules be the same...are we also going to require the ball carrier to start dribbling...the rule is the rule...it isn't hard to understand, there is no reason to change it.....

Man, I agree with you and don't wish to rehash the whole thing again, and again, and again, for fear of beating a dead horse. As I have said previously, I have no problem with the interpretation of the rule, or the application of the rule - I understand this is not basketball, and do not wish to apply basketball rules to football. However, I still have my personal likes and dislikes regarding the rules. In my personal opinion, I would love for there to be a rule that specifically states that a receiver who has touched OOB remains OOB until he returns by touching IB. Whether you agree or disagree does not matter to me in the least. I personally wish the rule about accepting the penalty on a scoring play would go away. To me, in REAL football, to be able to keep the score, you should have to decline the live-ball penalty. But again, that's just my personal preference - I have no problem interpreting and applying the present rule on Friday night.

Now, why don't we all move on and talk about something else?