What does the case book say?

Is there an IR or AR or OR?

So you really believe that the rules makers intented to allow for someone to run beyond the end-line and onto the track , jump in the air (presently not out of bounds, by your interpretation) and bat the ball to a teammate who is standing wholy in the end-zone for a touchdown?

It's either a yes or no answer.

A player is "out of bounds when he is touching" out of bounds and I will rule he is still out of bounds until he is "touching inbounds".

Ah. Cool. Stay the H off my field then. I'll find a new HL - no worries.

Luckily, we're issued a rulebook that tells us otherwise.

I'll go back to the other one... How do you rule? A88 forced out of bounds and on his way back in. Pass in his direction, he leaps, and the ball hits his hands.

Is the play over?

Odd. You quote me saying one thing and asking you a question ... and then you tell me I believe something absurd, ignore the question posted, and then ask me a question I've now answered for you 3 times. The answer is no. Don't ask me again. Now, answer mine!

I figured you correctly, you are the "have it both ways" type to make your argument work for you.

Folks, there is a reason why this isn't addressed by the FED. Julian last year said he had no use for someone who had no concept of how football is to be played. If they had no more common sense than to argue your side, you were not worth the time setting you straight.

I'll take his advice and let you show the world how much you know about the game. You keep calling those holds 48 yards from the point of attack. ;)

However, I do reserve the right to ask you the question however many freaking times I wish. ;) ;)

What exactly am I trying to have both ways? You've asked me the same question 3 times now, and I've answered you. Why do you refuse to answer mine? I'll repost to make it simple:

To the OP, I've said repeatedly this is not a TD - I just keep saying that YOUR reason that it's not a TD is both faulty AND flies in the face of other rules. I believe that ALL of us here have "a concept of how football is played". You don't even know what I'm arguing at this point, however.

I believe their intention was for this to be illegal participation, as that is the last previously published Fed interpretation on the matter. This is consistent with the NCAA that treats this play as illegal touching. In either code, it is a foul.

I'm not so sure about not having to reestablish yourself, but I am cetain the intent of the rule isn't that a player can go oobjump from oob and touch the ball with no repercussions. I know it's not a popular stance but I think AJMC is on the right track here. This sounds like an egregious oversight by the rules and one that we should correct on the field. Sometimes common sense and logic have to prevail. I also ran this scenario by one of our veteran referees Trevor Melmac and he agreed that you can't let this go.

Just one try here. I can't believe I am letting myself get dragged into this thing.

A1 runs a route down the sideline. He accidentally steps out of bounds (not forced out) and then jumps to catch the pass. He then secures the ball and lands inbounds. Is he out of bounds or is this play still live?

Probably not. But then again the rulesmakers never intended for that A-11 offense to exist either and they had to fix that after the fact too.

Really? What happens if the bat is intercepted by B and run back for a TD? You taking that away from them with no clear rule reason to do so?

9-6-2, 9-6-1 for accidental; Fundamental I-6.

Bat? Is it a vampire bat? Edward would be so fast and strong that you would never see him step out of bounds! :p

It's truly a sad day when that juvenile Twilight crap invades an officiating board.