Again, no one has said he is legally participating. We have said, ad nauseum, that he is illegally participating.

When the receiver jumps in the air he is no longer "touching anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside the sideline or end line." Therefore, he is no longer OOB. If he is not OOB, then he has returned in violation of 9-6-2: Penalty - Illegal Participation. When he touches the pass, the ball has not touched a player OOB and is not dead.

Again, no one says this is legal. However, the play continues. If B intercepts the ball or recovers a fumble on the play, they would be able to decline the penalty and keep the ball.

It's kind of like trying to nail Jello to the wall, isn't it?

But if I just put one more nail in it, :D

East - kudos for trying.

Here's why I gave up. AJ continues to put up, and argue with, strawman arguments, and disagrees even with himself. I think it's clear, now, that he just wants to argue with SOMEthing.

First he claims this sitch is merely OOB - incomplete. When he's dogpiled by those who read the rule to mean what it says, instead of extending the rule so that "is" means "was" or "has" - he then rails against those of us who want to call the play a touchdown...

Except that none of us are saying that. He's argued repeatedly that A88 cannot suddenly legally participate - when we're saying he cannot suddenly legally participate. He says he would rule OOB-incomplete because he's proven that A88 cannot legally participate ... which makes no sense. Then he even says, "This is clearly illegal participation", when that's what we've tried to say all along! Then he goes straight back to OOB-incomplete. He doesn't even know what he thinks anymore ... he just thinks the opposite of the most recent post, whoever may have sent that.

When that didn't work, he threw out condescending sarcasm, then when called on it claims that I started that.

AJ - can I be more clearer than this: "NO ONE THINKS THIS IS LEGAL PARTICIPATION". It's just not incomplete or a dead ball. it is IP (or IT in NCAA).

Trust me, there aren't enough in the hardware store. :)

That's what I'd say about the player of R standing out of bounds who touches a rolling free kick to make it out of bounds, based on a broad reading of "participate" (taking the provision on "illegal participation" implicitly defining "participate" as non-exhaustive) even though he didn't "return". However, I'd have a hard time considering it illegal participation for a player who'd just stepped over the sideline and jumped for the ball. Seems to me the spirit of the rule against illegal participation requires a player deliberately try to take advantage of going out of bounds.

I'd say AJ has the spirit of the rule correct. To me it seems harsh to give a penalty for IP for an act that runs against the spirit of the rule on illegal participation, but silly to consider the ball to remain in play when it leads to such strange consequences. Sometimes you just have to understand that the rules writers made an oversight in the wording and rule on the obvious spirit of the rule rather than the letter.

Then why have both the Federation and the NCAA have issued interpretations that this is clearly not out of bounds? I have to believe the NFHS meant exactly what they wrote both then and now.

The IP rule in general is harsh in dealing with Team A players that have unintentionally stepped out of bounds. A receiver that is one step out of bounds and returns has committed IP and that is what the Fed wants so calling the OP IP is consistent with other situations. This is why I like the NCAA rule better.

You've confused me. You're saying you would call IP on a player who hasn't returned but won't on one who has?

AJ has the spirit of the rules wrong (and right since as crowder has pointed out he goes back and forth on his result). The spirit of the rule is that you are not allowed to participate if you leave the field unless forced off. The spirit of the rule is also that a ball isn't dead until it goes OOB or falls incomplete.

Despite this, AJ wants to rule that a ball that has not gone out of bounds is dead. That's against the spirit of the rules.

As to strange consequences, I don't see them. What's strange about calling a penalty?

I suppose I can see that for a player that goes out of bounds, and then simply jumps up to catch a pass that went OOB. It would still be wrong by rule, but at least I can understand your desire to not penalize this.

But would you not consider a receiver that jumps in the air and intentionally throws it or bats it to another player to be "deliberately trying to take advantage of going out of bounds?"

I'm not sure I follow your logic at all. Considering that both FED and NCAA tell you EXACTLY what they want called here via caseplay - I don't think it makes a lot of sense for us, as officials, to consider their answer "silly" or "against the spirit of the rule". Further - it seems very backward to me to have no problem with IP in the first sitch you describe, but not in the OP. Last - can you define what you mean by strange consequences? 15 yards (or 5) for trying to cheat doesn't seem odd to me.

I believe that by rule this play is neither IP or incomplete. It's an odd loophole in the rule for a situation that is almost unlikely to ever occur! If you are going to call this IP, you are also going to call the following play an IP:

A80, while in his route, steps on the sideline and leaps for a pass. He catches it while airborn and lands (a) out of bounds or (b) in bounds.

If you are in the incomplete pass camp for the first play, you have to rule incomplete only for both of these plays as well. If you are in the IP camp, you would rule IP for both of these plays as well.

I think most officials would agree (a) is just an incomplete pass and (b) could be correctly ruled IP but some would probably just rule incomplete.

If a coach is going to intentionally run a play that involves a receiver touching out of bounds, leaping, catching and throwing or batting the ball to a teammate SUCCESSFULLY, and having that receiver do anything with it from there is probably not going to be coaching very long. If they pull this off, I think it's still a live ball with no fouls. The case play Welpe used was from a few years ago and we don't know if it was removed to make space or because it's no longer a valid interpretation.

Regardless, this play is probably never going to happen so what's the point getting so emotional about it? Go with your own opinions and move on.

Mike, perhaps you're not reading what I'm trying to say. You may never have suggested Illegal Participation was involved in this scenario, but others have, and we are in agreement that Illegal Participation is NOT appropriate in the NFHS world. That is one area we appear to be in agreement on.

I have no interest in NCAA rules. As I understand Illegal Participation, on the NFHS level, I'm looking at NF: 9-6-1 & 2 which clearly state the conditions under which a player comits this foul, which requires not only going OOB, but returning. The mechanic used in our area, to focus on that required sequence, calls for a beanbag to be thrown when an A (or K) player crosses the line and a flag when he crosses back inbounds (See "Comment" Case Book 9.6.1.A)

I don't see how a player who has completed all the requirements of being OOB can violate any provision of NF: 9-6, without "returning inbounds", nor do I understand how a player can magically satisfy the requirement of "returning inbounds" by simply jumping up into the air while remaining outside the playing field boundries.

If I've confused you, Mike, allow me to try and clarify.

Since the action by A88 (in the ridiculous sample play) does NOT qualify for either Illegal Participation or Illegal Touching (under NFHS Illegal Touching is something an ineligible receiver does), the result of the play (redirecting the live ball back across the sideline to an inbounds teammate who advances across the goal line), the result of the play MUST be a TD, because there's no reason for it not to be.

You seem to agree that allowing this score to stand DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, but I don't see how or why you can prevent that without considering the ball dead when touched OOB by your airborne, OOB A88. If you insist the ball remains alive, and admit that no penalty has been committed, NF: 8-2-1 "Possession of a live ball in the opponent's End Zone is always a touchdown." takes over.

This does get to be a confusing string as some insist on twisting the original question to try and support their position. Mike, if you would read what I've said, instead of assuming what you thought I meant to say, it might seem clearer and easier to follow.

My position is relatively simple, due to the absence of any foul being committed by A88, the play has to stand, or for some reason, fail to stand. Interpreting the touching by A88 to have been by an OOB player, even though he is not consistently touching the ground, which seems a reasonable interpretation, provides the appropriate ruling. There's no flag on the ground, because nobody has earned one, and we can move on.

Because it's not a question of right or wrong - it's just that AJMC can't accept defeat. :)

I sit here stunned. Absolutely stunned.

I recognize that you're trying to throw me an olive branch here ... and I hate to crush it. But OMFG. No - we're not in agreement, not at all.

Yes. I have. Suggested it's IP. Not suggested, stated. It's Illegal freaking participation. How can you read what I just wrote and think otherwise? Goodness, you even quoted IN YOUR POST, and then BOLDED it - where I say "it is IP".

Kind of renders the rest of your post moot wrt what I'm saying.

Literally Freaking Stunned.

I despair to hope that this makes a lick of difference, but once more into the breach.

Please actually read the rules cited this time. Stop assuming you know what they say and actually read them.

Reread 9-6-2. It does not say return to the field. It says returns.

Answer this question: When A88 jumps in the air, is he touching OOB? The answer is no. Since he is not touching OOB he does not meet the definition of being OOB to wit "A player or other person is out of bounds 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."

By definition (although I grant you it's the Fed's definition, not yours) the player is not OOB. If he's not OOB but he was OOB, he has returned.

I will grant you that he has not returned to the field but that is not relevant to 9-6-2.

The ball is therefore not OOB when he touches it as it has not touched an OOB player (2-29-3) because the player is not touching OOB (2-29-1).

By touching the pass, A88 has participated (2-30). Since he intentionally went OOB but is no longer OOB (thus returned), his participation is illegal (9-6-2).

It's really quite simple (and I dare say not that controversial) if you actually read the rules.

I think they may be a bit embarrassed at an oversight of long standing and are insincerely defending it.

But at least a Fed player of A who is running approximately parallel to the sideline can be alert to the possibility of having stepped out of bounds and returned. This situation is likely to be different: a receiver running at a considerable angle to the sideline while looking back for the ball who doesn't know he has stepped on the sideline. Are you saying you would really flag for IP in the harmless case where such a player caught the ball or batted it in such a way that it became dead anyway? If not, you too must be acknowledging what I wrote, and hypocritically presenting a penalty option only to prevent team A from benefiting in the unlikely, but not out of the realm of possibility, being discussed here and in the previous thread. Which means you know it should be an incomplete pass, and would be doing the next best thing by using selective enforcement to appear to uphold the letter of the rules, instead of ajmc's simply ruling incomplete openly.

I'd say that someone who is touching the ground out of bounds and touches a live ball for the purpose of making it dead is "participating" even though he may not be literally said to have "returned to participate".

What's strange is giving the choice of accepting a penalty for IP or allowing a pass completion in some of the bizarre situations brought up in the previous thread on this same subject.

You know, where the ball hits the baton thrown up by the baton twirler and rebounds into the field. Or where it's 4th down and team A sends a couple receivers well and clearly beyond the end line to jump and bat an overthrown ball back (which their receiver in the end zone had a shot at, but missed) so that team B needs to accept the penalty and repeat the down to avoid giving up a TD. Or where a receiver nicks the sideline with his foot while jumping and catching the ball.

So A88 earns a flag for IP for not touching the ground when he touched the ball? That's going to make for some interesting, and difficult, calls along the sideline.

I don't believe any of you arguing for this position would even try to call this consistently. In the ordinary case where the ball or player holding it just lands out of bounds, you would rule on the spirit of the rule, as ajmc calls for explicitly, and call it a dead ball and no foul. The only reason you'd call it IP would be to save the other team from its being a completed pass in some of the extreme cases discussed here. And that's just hypocrisy.

Yeah, we know how the literal rules read. We know how a partly applicable case was stated in an interpretations book. But I don't believe a bit of it.

I quite seriously doubt that. The NCAA rules committee especially is quick to make changes and will do so even after the changes for a year have been published if they deem necessary.

Yees I have and would have again under Fed. I've flagged receivers for stepping out and returning, even when they never touched a pass. That's the rule.

Now that I'm working only under NCAA, I will flag it for illegal touching.

If you have such a problem with the Federation "allowing another down" for IP, then you should petition them to change the rule so that it matches the NCAA. You really need to take this up with the rules committee.

Please don't start telling us what we would do or call, especially when we have actually officiated high school (and in some cases) collegiate football games. Part of being an official is having the guts and integrity to make tough calls that are supported by rule, even if they appear to be unpopular or inequitable. Not being an official and telling us how we WILL do our jobs is rather hypocritical on your own behalf. But I really would not expect you to understand that.

Let's just burn the rule book then, what's the use in even knowing it? :rolleyes:

And that's about all I have to say about that. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get my equipment ready for a scrimmage tomorrow.

This is much older than a year.

For "returning" by not touching the ground continuously?

I'm saying you've never even thought about flagging for IP on the basis of a player's leaving the ground after touching out of bounds.

The right call is frequently interesting and difficult. We still make them anyway. It's not our job to decide the rule should be something different and call that. It's our job to call the rules as they are written. If there's loopholes in them, it's the committee's issue to resolve not ours.

Sorry Mike, I just assumed you simply made a typo and went with your initial observation, "can I be more clearer than this: "NO ONE THINKS THIS IS LEGAL PARTICIPATION". I presumed after my telling you the rule number, you would have actually looked it up and realized your assessment is simply wrong.

I'll try and explain if for you Mike, in simple terms; there's really nothing wrong, or illegal, about going out of bounds. Anyone can do so whenever they choose without fear of penalty. The problem arises from the conditions under which they "return to the field during the down", the requirements for which are spelled out in NF: 9-6.

My apologies for misunderstanding your previous comment, I assumed you understood how utterly wrong you were and wisely corrected yourself.
Apparently my mistake, for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

It's hilarious that the guy who refuses to actually read a rule says this.

You are quoting 9-6-1 which only applies to A or K who was blocked out of bounds. The full quote is:

"Prior to a change of possession, or when there is no change of possession, no player of A or K shall go out of bounds and return to the field during the down unless blocked out of bounds by an opponent. If a player is blocked out of bounds by an opponent and returns to the field during the down, he shall return at the first opportunity."

The rule that is relevant here is instead 9-6-2 (as I've said at least three times) which says in full:

"During the down, no player shall intentionally go out of bounds and return."

Notice how it doesn't say return to the field.

I can't believe that in Fed you're ever going to flag for IP the player who touches the sideline and then is not touching the ground when he touches the ball unless he does something that indicates he jumped so as to relieve himself of being out of bounds -- and probably not even then unless the ball bounces back into play. You've probably called the normal situation a dead ball a hundred times or more without a moment's hesitation.

It doesn't happen often that I conclude such a thing in any discussion forum about anything, but any of you who think about this and still say you'd administer such a play that way -- you're lying.

Oh I certainly have and I will when it happens. Of course now that I'm working NCAA rules, it will be for illegal touching.

If this statement weren't so patently absurd, I think I may have been offended. But please, continue on with telling me how I would rule on something.

Are you serious? Are you actually going to suggest that , "intentionally go out of bounds and return" might mean something other than return TO THE FIELD? Are you willing to hang your hat on that nail?

As I keep trying to tell you, and others who share your "opinion", do what you think is right. I have no problem dealing with this issue the way I see it. If you are comfortable dealing with it the way you see it, knock yourself out - Good Luck.

If it meant return to the field, it would say return to the field just like 9-6-1 does. The fact that 9-6-1 and 9-6-2 state it differently is actually important.

I will hang my hat on the rules every time. You keep adding words to the rules to make them mean what you want them to mean.

Important? OK, but you forgot to mention exactly where, your strict adherence to the rule, tells you where the OOB player is prohibited from returning to. At some point, Eastshire, you will hopefully come to accept that we do a much more effective job when understand what a rule actually means, in addition to what it says.

Actually, I haven't. He's returning to not being OOB, as we've said quite often.

When what you say a rule means is the opposite of what it says, you're not being effective, you're not enforcing the rule.

If Out of Bounds is being beyond the confines of the playing field (as defined in NF: 1-1-2), where does someone return to, if not within the confines of the field of play? Jibberish works for some people, but not all.

Just a suggestion, but when your best possible explanation of something is more confusing and sounds sillier than your original observation, you might consider just not saying anything.

I have never suggested, "When what you say a rule means is the opposite of what it says", I have simply opined that the interpretation that a player, who has absolutely satisfied the requirements of becoming OOB, somehow loses that designation by simply jumping up into the air, while remaining outside the playing field, is simply inaccurate and makes absolutely no common sense or serves any purpose related to the game of football, and therefore I conclude is incorrect.

Forgive me for repeating myself, but if you can provide ANY rational explanation, or even suggestion, why such a contradictory concept should even be remotely considered, I'll be happy to reevaluate my position.

I'd hate to break it to you, but not only does 1-1-2 not contain any definitions, it doesn't even mention out of bounds. OOB is actually defined in 2-29 and of course you just don't like what it says. As to where someone is returning to, as I said in just my last post giving further evidence you don't actually read what anyone is saying, is not OOB.

I agree that including airborne players who last touched OOB as OOB players is rational. That's the choice basketball made. However, it's not the choice that football made. Having OOB players only include those actually touching OOB is also a rational choice, your dislike of it notwithstanding.

You are ignoring the rule because you don't like it, not because it isn't rational.

Anyways, this will be my last post on the matter as it's clear your more interested in what you want the rules to be than what the rules actually are.

I know what you said in your last post, it just doesn't make any sense to me (and I doubt to you either). NF:1-1-2 is not a definition, it does however identify what the measurements of the playing surface (which some consider to equate to "inbounds") actually is.

I do NOT think NF:2-29-1 is irrational, I think your interpretation of what NF: 2-29-1 means is irrational (and thus far you seem unable to even try and correct that conclusion).

I don't want the rules of this game to be anything more than realistic, rational, logical, understandable and explainable and I believe my interpretation of NF: 2-29-1 satisfies all those requirements. Your interpretation falls short on multiple levels.

There's the difference right there. You WANT something from the rules. The rest of us have no such desire to make the rules what we want them to be. Your interp does not satisfy anything at all, as you have to change the words to make the rule mean what you WANT it to mean (is touching becomes has touched) or you have to invent a concept not part of football's rules to fit what you WANT into the rules. Either is simply bad officiating.

Changing the words in a sentence is not "interpreting" - it's changing.
Inventing a concept that doesn't exist at all in the book is not "interpreting" - it's inventing.

Sorry my friend - and I use that term loosely - I agree with Welpe in that it's not your place and certainly none of your business to decide what I will or will not do while I'm on the football field. Furthermore, I'm personally offended that you would call me a liar when you don't even know me. Agreed, before this play was posted, I would have called the player OOB and blown it dead, but now, after having learned the rule and SERIOUSLY considered all the posts, I will have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM flagging the guy for IP in this situation.(Why do I keep feeling like this is going to happen to me?:eek:)
So, unless you have something positive to contribute, keep your offending comments to yourself.

Robert, you usually supply good commentary and well reasoned logic when you post. We don't always agree, but I always get where you're coming from and you sometimes convince me in the error of my ways.

That said - I'm not sure why this particular topic drew your ire as strongly as it seems to, but I really feel your opinions about whether your fellow officials on here are liars or not were inappropriate.

Mike, I don't believe that Robert is an official.

I thought, from another board, that he was an NCAA official. Perhaps he merely shares a name.

A word of general advice, Mike, when you speak for yourself alone, you are on a lot firmer ground. I can tell you for absolute sure, you are not competent to tell me what I'm thinking, or have any idea what I want. Based on your analysis, you are also not competent to lecture me about rules or rule concepts.

You do what you think is right, and I'll continue to do what I think is correct and with some luck we'll both survive without too much agita.

It's the first time I can recall in any online discussion of anything where I thought the people on the other side (other than the trivial cases wherein people troll for flames) weren't just wrong, but insincere. I just can't believe any of you would mess up your sideline and end line calls by a mechanical application of the rules that would result in IP calls for inconsequential plays.

The basic situation is not rare! When you consider that someone running will have neither foot on the ground much of the time, and when you consider all the times someone runs out of bounds trying to catch a ball near a sideline, there's a good likelihood that it will occur several times a game. I don't believe any of you would routinely throw that flag. Any of you seriously entertaining that idea are kidding yourselves, and the rest of you are just lying if you say you would. You're just writing what you've written here for the sake of argument, to say you'd apply the letter of the law, which has brought out some rather goofy play situations that are interesting and curious.

Frequently discussions here have been contentious, and once in a while someone may suspect that others are arguing just for its own sake, but in this case I'm really convinced that's so.

BTW, I don't officiate except in desperate situations, but I do coach.

I would not attempt to tell you what you're thinking. I base what I said on what you SAY, for this is all I have to go on. If you don't think what you say, don't say it. Here's your quote: My point was that from this statement, you say you WANT the rules to be something. The rest of us, fortunately, just base our rulings on the ACTUAL rules, and not what we want them to be.

But in this case it's just obvious the rules writers didn't mean what they wrote. Unless they make an extended statement backing it up, I'm taking anything official written that appears to back it up as just noise.

Look at it this way (jumping off from another thread): The home team was behind, and have just given up another score (FG or TD & try), and you ask their captain if they want to kick off or receive, and the answer you hear is, "Kick off, yeah." Would you just go ahead and make the ball ready for play for them to kick off? Or would you call him close and make really clear that you were asking him which team he wants to kick off?

That's how I'm taking this circumstance. Unfortunately none of you have the att'n of the rules committee that you could get from a team captain. So until there's clarif'n that makes really clear they're taking into account both ordinary and extraordinary cases of people formerly touching the ground having contact with the ball over land that's out of bounds, I don't care what a literal reading of the rules says, they meant it to be a dead ball if a player touches out of bounds and then plays it there before coming back to the ground out of bounds. And they didn't mean it to be a foul if someone just tries to play the ball while trying, but failing, to keep feet in bounds.

No Mike, that's not accurate. You seem to base your remarks on what you have decided I meant by what I actually said.

I don't know exactly "who the rest of us" you reference actually is, but I'm pretty confident, based on the officials I've known and worked with for many years, by and large are also hoping the rules thay are charged with enforcing are, "realistic, rational, logical, understandable and explainable".

If you last long enough, doing this thing we do Mike, hopefully you will learn that "knowing" the rules, although extremely important, is only the start of what we do.

Understanding those rules and how they impact and effect the game and applying them to very specific situations that you may be confronted with to keep things in balance, is a never ending learning process that requires, above all, flexibility and sound common sense that enables the rules to be applied as intended, and is largely why we're there.

If you're willing to enforce anything that you honestly don't understand and despite giving it serious thought cannot explain rationally, (notice I'm not including "like" or "agree with", because neither matters much) perhaps you're on the wrong road.

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.

Robert, I hear what you're saying.
AJ - I appreciate the kinder tone, and promise you I've already lasted "long enough".

And I realize the OP stretches realisticness quite a bit. But the idea that you should ignore a rule because you think it seems unrealistic, or because you personally have decided that the rule as written is not what they meant to write, is an extremely slippery slope.

Further, in THIS case, deciding arbitrarily to either replace the word IS with HAS, or inventing the concept of having to reestablish yourself inbounds once you go out of bounds is contrary to caseplay (the one Welpe has posted a few times.)

No, you do understand.

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.

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.

but this is football
 

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?