Yes, but it wouldn't be consistent with their own rule book. Didn't realize this play was a rehash... we appear to have gotten to the right answers already - NCAA - illegal touching, FED - IP.

Consistent by interpretation. That was the published Fed interp a few years ago (and what the Redding interp is based upon), it has been since removed from the casebook but a change has never been published.

IP or not, it is clearly not incomplete. :)

As I've tried to suggest many times, waltjp, I respect your right to form your opinion as you see fit, although I'm not always very impressed with the way you choose to express your conclusions. The important thing is really whether anyone is comfortable with the opinion they've formed, and I am absolutely comfortable with my interpretation and the logic I've used to reach it.

You get to choose whatever "authoritative sources" you like to support your conclusion, and if you have access to any "accepted interpretations published by FED", I'd appreciate your sharing them.

"Jaybird" do yourself a favor, understand and accept the reality that you haven't quite earned the right to use words like "therefore", "Proof positive" or "just something fabricated to satisfy a desire" to add any substantial verification to what amounts to what are just your "opinions".

I have an idea, let's just cut and paste our posts from the previous thread. It'll save us a lot of time.

I really can't stand it when someone reads the rules, invents some opinion that is contrary to those rules, and then justifies it by calling it interpretation.

There is the rule. It tells you quite clearly whether a person is defined as Out Of Bounds.

At the moment he touched, you're right, he's out of bounds. But you've taken this to some bizarre extreme to think that a player once out of bounds is always out of bounds. Completely false, and not consistent with other rules in the book. One example - a player forced out, trying to come back in who leaps, catches, and lands in - is IN... but by "your interpretation" or logic, this player is OUT because he was out when he went out and what he does thereafter doesn't much matter.

Luckily, we have rules to tell us whether this airborne player is out. He's not - because he does not fulfill the definition of Out Of Bounds.

Excuse me Mike, but nobody is inventing a damn thing except those who have recently manufactured this absolutely silly interpretation that a player who has clearly established himself as being OOB can somehow, miraculously retain his status of being Inbounds by simply jmping up into the air while remaining out side the boundry lines. Thus far NOBODY has been able to rationally explain the common sense of that bizarre interpretation. If you suggest this is "consistent with other rules in the book" you are reading something other than any NFHS rule Book ever written

As for your example of a player being FORCED OOB, that is a completely different matter. If you would like an example of how downright stupid your idea is try this; A88 runs OOB and continues behind the team area where he jumps up into the air and, while ariborne, redirects a pass thrown over the team area, to A89 who has never left the field of play, but has wandered 30 yards downfield and catches the redirected pass and advances for a TD.

You're going to allow the score? If so that's on you, I'm going to kill the play as an incomplete pass the instant A88 touches the ball behind his team area, and move on to the next down. Good luck with your score.

I'm really not sure what got you so belligerent. I'm not "recently inventing" anything. The book quite clearly states what makes a player out of bounds. I will restate what I said earlier since you seem to have intentionally misunderstood. Your concept / interpretation / whatever that a player that was previously out of bounds but currently in the air is still out of bounds is NOT consistent with the case of a player forced OOB. Such a player is not out of bounds, although he's not yet IN bounds either. You seem to assume that not out of bounds somehow means IN bounds. Obviously, you can be neither. Any airborne player ANYWHERE is neither in nor out of bounds at that moment. This IS consistent with the forced OOB player returning and landing in.


Yeah, that's stupid alright. Your point? The question was ... by what RULE (not made up rule... real rule) would you rule this not to be a score.

Try really hard not to put words in people's mouths. Did I EVER state that I would allow this score? No. Not even close, and no, I wouldn't. However, just calling it an incomplete pass is quite simply incorrect. Should the offense try something like this and instead have the defense catch the ball - you dang well better let defense keep the ball. Me saying your "interpretation" is not only wrong, but complete fabrication does NOT imply I would let this play score.

Trust me Mike, you will get absolutely no where.

Yes Mike, my example was ridiculous, but it illustrates the point in question. Either the score would stand, or it would not. If you agree "not", why not? If you follow your interpretation that the player touching the ball, who had previously satisfied the requirement of being OOB, somehow reestablished himself as being inbounds by jumping up into the air (even though remaining clearly beyond the sideline), then as ridiculous as it seems, there would be no reason for the score not to count.

Forgive me, but that conclusion makes absolutely no sense to me, and is contrary to the basic concept of the game being played within the confines of a "field of play".

Where does your conclusion, "Any airborne player ANYWHERE is neither in nor out of bounds at that moment." come from? Actually a player who has been inbounds and leaps across the sideline is absolutely considered inbounds until he comes down (or touches something) OOB.

I'm not making up a rule, it simply makes common sense to me that when a player has completed the requirements of being OOB (by touching the ground while OOB) he is OOB. As for a player being forced OOB, the rule is that his touching OOB should be ignored if, and when, forced, although he would be required to return inbounds immediately at the first opportunity to regain playing status.

Absent being forced OOB, A or K cannot legally participate in play after being OOB and B or R can only participate after returning within the confines of the field. Therefore, what sense does it make, either football sense or common sense, to allow such a player, who has satisfied the requirement of being OOB to participate while he is still beyond the playing field?

No, I don't believe I'm "making up a rule", I believe the interpretation suggesting leaping into the air after being OOB, somehow eliminates being OOB is a silly semantic attempt to subvert the practical intent and application of NF:2-29-1.

Alfie, I'm glad you're comfortable with your position but it has no basis in reality.

My authoritative source is the FED rule book. Try looking up 2-29, the definition of "Out of bounds." This has been offered to you numerous times and you continue to dismiss it and replace it with your own 'common sense.' That's nothing but common foolery.

Sorry Waltjp, but I'm still waiting for you to share your, "accepted interpretations published by FED", about this issue. We're both very familiar with NF:2-29 and it does not address this question.

If you have a problem with "common foolery" please be kind enough to explain how the ridiculous example I used, to highlight the absense of logic behind your interpretation makes any common, or football, sense whatsoever. On the contrary it subverts and makes a mockery of the idea of applying basic common sense to the enforecement of rules in general.

However, if you're satisfied with following an interpretation that you CANNOT rationally explain, that decision is yours to make. Good luck with it.

I wasn't going to jump in again, but I have to. You made a ridiculous example that CANNOT be a touchdown (exactly like the OP) - and use this to "prove" that your interpretation of the rule is correct. This would be Example 1 on a logic professor's board when he's explaining Fallacy.

The OP (and your example) aren't TD's ... but not because this invented status of "in bounds" was both created and subverted by the examples. I invite you to show me where the rules say anything about "in bounds" wrt a situation even remotely like what we're talking about.

Thing is ... a player is out of bounds... or he's NOT out of bounds - that's it. And NOT out of bounds does not necessarily mean IN bounds (not that that matters, really).

You actually, FINALLY, found the right word that leads you to the right rule that allows a referee to not allow this play to stand. You don't have to invent a misinterpretation of out-of-bounds which is actually invalid in another similar situation. You HAVE a rule - and it's not the one you refer to. However, I'll leave you to figure it out, should you stop being obstinate and try to become an actual official that follows the rules we're given. You choose not to try ... no skin of my nose - and NOW I'm out.

I'm really hope you feel a lot better Mike, and am glad you still have all your nose skin, now go take a pill and relax. I fully understand there's no definition of being "Inbounds" and understand it might be helpful if there was, but I really don't think it's that big a deal as the game has survived for 130+ years without one.

I have never once suggested to anyone how they should consider this situation, but have suggested only how I consider it, which boils down to little more than, "much ado about nothing".

I never said that "my interpretation is correct", I said that my interpretation makes sense to me and I would be comfortable explaining the logic behind my interpretation. Honestly, I can not imagine explaining rationally how the interpretation that the ball remains alive under these circumstances, and to date NOBODY has been able to offer any rational explanation either, outside of demanding, "That's what it says". I don't accept that conclusion.

You should do what you believe is the correct thing to do, which is what I plan to do should this situation arise. I'm not making up my own rule, I simply don't accept your explanation of what you think NF: 2-29-1 means, because I cannot make any sense out of it and it seems clearly contrary to the objective of the rules being rational and reasonable and serving a purpose.

As I've suggested, repeatedly before, if you could explain some rational that makes the slightest bit of sense to the interpretation of a player who has satisfied the requirements, of being OOB, can somehow return to being legally able to participate, although remaining clearly OOB, by simply jumping up into the air, I'll be happy to reconsider my position. Until then, I'll stick with my instincts, if that's OK with you.

Alf, the truth is you don't like the rule and don't want to enforce it the way it's written. You hide behind common sense and logic to avoid reality. Be honest, have you talked to any other officials in your area about this play? Do they share your reasoning? - or do they walk away mumbling to themselves?

The rule clearly says that a player is out of bounds when he is "touching" something that is out of bounds. Unless you can prove that the something is air you have no argument.

The rule disputes your stance. What documentation can you produce to show the rule to be incorrect?

Walt do you have the necessary college degree to analyze the complex, verbose phrase "is touching"?