Well, you've got me Waltjp, I'll admit I deliberately try and, "hide behind common sense and logic" as much as I can. I'm still waiting for you or ANBODY to simply state some example, some rational for your interpretation NOT to be absolutely ridiculous and totally contrary to the basic concept of the game of football. Given such evidence I'll be happy to reconsider my position, until then I'm going to stick with that "common sense and logic" stuff.

There is no dispute that the rule requires a player to touch something OOB, before completing the process of having become OOB. I have yet to read that part of the rule that requires that player to continue touching, once there has been touching, which made that player OOB. Perhaps that's one of those, ""accepted interpretations published by FED" I'm anxiously waiting for.

I tried to demonstrate an extreme and silly example of what your interpretation would allow, as a means of demonstrating just how dopey your argument seems and where it could lead. As improbable and nutty that example was, under your interpretation, it would be legal.

So save us both a lot of time, and stop and think about what your interpretation would allow, which is exactly opposite to what the rules try and generate, rather than continuing to bellow the same point about what the rule actually says, and doesn't say.

Well, I ain't no English major, but I thunk I learned it good, back in 1st grade.

Alfie, why are 3 points scored when you kick it through the uprights for a field goal, but only 1 point when kicked through the same uprights following a TD?

Because that's what the rule book says.

Why is a player not considered out of bounds when he's not touching something that's out of bounds?

Because that's what the rule book says.

Common sense and logic tell me there's no advantage gained when a player momentarily grasps and then releases an opponent's facemask but the rule book wants me to call this a foul.

What? You mean "is touching" and "touched at some point in the past" are not the same thing?

I've given your example ... twice. But you ignore it. So why bother.

Is the rule book too obtuse for you?

BTW - what do you have to back up your ridiculous opinion?

Just that old, "common sense and logic thing", Walt. It's not about being "obtuse" (nice word) or verbosity, it's simply a matter of understanding the game and what it's all about. You keep reaching for analogies and each one you grasp is further from relating.

It's not about scoring 1 point versus 3, not about a player safety issue like grasping a face mask. It's more about NF: 1-1-1 and 1-1-2 than all the nonsense you're trying to find.

I can't determine when NF:2-29 was last revised, if it ever was revised but the Oficials manual suggests the rule regarding "going out of bounds and returning applies to A or K only" was part of the 1991 revisions. I wonder why nobody apparently had a problem with this whole situation until a couple of years ago when someone (don't know who exactly) floated this nonsense about a player who has clearly established himself as being OOB, somehow majically retained the status of being Inbounds, by simply jumping up into the air, while remaining OOB, because the wording is "Is touching" rather than just "touched".

Please note, the rule doesn't say anything about "continuing to touch", it simply states when that player is touching he becomes OOB, as opposed to when he might be airborne beyond the sideline/endline but has yet to touch down. However, when he is touching he becomes OOB. Where does it mention anything about him no longer being OOB if his touching stops or is interrupted?

Much more importantly, what could conceivably be the reason for allowing this player, having satisfied the requirements of being OOB, to lose that designation, which according to your daffy interpretation allows him to participate in the game, even though he is still clearly outside the confines of a "retangular field 360 by 160 feet? (NF:1-1-2) Sorry, there's that common sense and logic thing again. If you've got additional insight, I'm willing to consider it, but please spare me all your gramatical silliness.

Did the game change? The object of the game change? I don't think so. For me, it's just a lot easier to understand that this "unique" interpretation, and what it wouild suggest would happen, is just so silly, so contradictory, so ridiculous it's simply NOT right.

If you want to believe that is what NF: 2-29 is telling us, you can believe it. I do not accept your interpretation of what you conclude 2-29 instructs.

Is English your native tongue?

No. It's troll.

And I don't know why you encourage it.

Why yes, English is my primary language. When I realize I have absolutely nothing of any value to offer, or am incapable of explaining something reasonably I choose to simply remain silent, rather than try and bark my way along.

You should consider that approach, because repeatedly ducking the question and relying on childish snarky remarks to bolster your position isn't working all that well for you.

And yet you offer nothing to back your position. :rolleyes:

C'mon Walt be serious, I've done everything but draw you a GD picture. If you don't understand my position and reasoning, it is ONLY because you haven't been paying attention.

I understand You don't agree with my reasoning and have said repeatedly that is ENTIRELY your decision to make. I don't agree with your decision but I fully understand that has no bearing whatsoever on you, or how you decide to deal with this issue.

If you've got something to add to your previous conclusion of, "because (you think) it says so", let's hear it. I'll be happy to consider it. If not, I'm afraid the best we can do is agree to disagree, and move on.

I'm a newer official and can't get into some of the in depth rules arguments with you guys but I don't know why yall are giving ajmc such a hard time. I agree with him. Doesn't the rule book make it clear that once you are out of bounds you remain out of bounds until you reestablish yourself in bounds? Besides he seems to be passionate about it, that should count for something!

Yes it does...in the basketball rule book. You will not find this anywhere in the football rules because it is a concept that does not exist in the NFHS, NCAA or NFL football rules. Read 2-29-1 and you will see that the rule plainly states that a player is out of bounds when he "is touching" out of bounds. Notice the use of the present tense.

It is entirely possible to be passionate and wrong at the same time.

No. Please post any rule that says anything at all about "re-establishing yourself". this is not basketball.

AJMC... A88 is forced out of bounds, and has touched out of bounds on the ground. From the sideline, he leaps in the air. The ball hits his hands... At this moment - is the play over? By definition, the play is over when the ball is out of bounds, and it has just contacted something that by your definition is out of bounds.

There are 3 possible continuations of this play. They have different results. The reason they have different results is that this airbound player is NOT out of bounds. Out of bounds is a present tense situation. It is not a status that gets flipped back and forth. There is no such thing as "in bounds". Something is simply either OUT OF BOUNDS... or it isn't. No one is claiming he is suddenly in bounds - that's you putting words in our mouths. We are, however, saying that by rule, he is NOT currently out of bounds when in the air.

By your definition, this play is over. However, consider the first 2 of these 3situations:
A) he catches this ball, and lands out of bounds.
B) he catches this ball, and lands in bounds.
Sitch A - WHEN HE LANDS, the pass is incomplete. (Note that it was not yet incomplete until he landed ... meaning that the player was NOT out of bounds when it hit him).
Sitch B - WHEN HE LANDS, the pass is COMPLETE - and the play is not yet over. But wait - by your opinion, this player was out of bounds at this moment - and can't catch the ball, despite rulings in the book otherwise.

So ... surely you recognize that this airborne player is not out of bounds. He has not, in basketballese, "re-established" himself in bounds. He is no longer out of bounds solely because of what.... because he is NOT TOUCHING (AT THAT MOMENT) anything that is out of bounds.

Now, Sitch C - the ball deflects off the player and into someone else's hands. Play on? Or no? The right answer is Play on. Not sure what your answer is, nor how you justify it based on your mistaken belief that the player is still out of bounds when he jumps, but I'm interested in hearing it.

Don't just dismiss the situation because THIS guy was forced out and the other was not. It's the same rules wrt out of bounds or not out of bounds - and the same regarding a ball contacting him.

Also note that the player IS out of bounds, not BECOMES out of bounds (which might imply some sort of ongoing status).