After reading ALL the posts, this one sounds most logical to me. If a player is defined as being OOB when touching OOB, the reverse most likely is true - he is determined to be INBOUNDS when he is touching inbounds.

You know, my biggest fear, and the reason I didn't just start ignoring the idiots, was that an otherwise intelligent official might read their drivel and BELIEVE it. Please don't.

Just read the book - the rulebook makes complete sense on it's own. It says a player is out of bounds (not BECOMES and out of bounds player, or anything denoting some continuing effect ... IS ) when he IS TOUCHING (not was touching or had touched in the past ... IS ) something out of bounds. there is no "inbounds". Just out of bounds and NOT out of bounds. Touching something outside the field of play or NOT touching something outside the field of play.

If the reverse was true, they would have said so. All chickens are birds does not mean all birds are chickens.

And consider the case play I keep bringing up that flies in the face of their (and now your) interpretation. A88 forced out of bounds. On his way back to the field, he leaps from OOB, catches the pass, and lands in bounds. THIS IS A CATCH. If what you said above is true, then this player, having not "reestablished himself" a la basketball in bounds is still out of bounds - so the ball would be when it touched him. The case play and AR proves this NOT to be true.

[QUOTE=mbcrowder;688381]You know, my biggest fear, and the reason I didn't just start ignoring the idiots, was that an otherwise intelligent official might read their drivel and BELIEVE it. Please don't.

I agree wholeheartedly with the definition of OOB. I just don't think you can make the leap (NO PUN INTENDED) that because inbounds is not specifically defined that it means everything other than OOB.

Thanks, I can use that logic in my argument. See above.

I'm just a lowly FED guy, don't know anything about NCAA, but I can't find the FED case you keep referring to - please help. Thanks.

I'm not saying your position doesn't have merit - it has certainly caused me to think, but I should have been from Missouri. You gotta show me.

I'm not a FED guy... but I believe Welpe has referred a few times to the OP being in the Redding guide as IP (which at the very least IMPLIES that the airborne player is not out of bounds, but rather participating).

Regarding in bounds - you don't have to worry about defining in bounds - none of the rules in question refer to it. They tell you what out of bounds is, and they tell you what happens when the ball touches something out of bounds. Whether you choose to call everything else in bounds or NOT out of bounds is really immaterial - it doesn't matter at all - none of these rules talks about in bounds.

Let me ask it to you this way ... since you're a show me guy.

A88 is forced out of bounds. While returning, leaps from OOB, catches the ball, lands in the field of play on both feet. Your ruling? And your rule for making such a ruling. By What Rule do you definitively prove your ruling one way or the other.

This was last published in the 2003 Fed Casebook and was removed the next year. But the Federation has issued no retraction, change of ruling or otherwise since then. In the interest of saving space, the Federation often removes plays from the casebook but that does not mean they are no longer valid.

9.6.1 Sit D

Wide receiver A1 runs a pass route along the sideline. He takes two steps out of bounds and goes airborne. While in the air he: (a) bats the ball to A2 who catches the ball; or (b) catches the ball and lands inbounds; or (c) catches the ball and lands out of bounds.

Ruling:

In (a) and (b), the ball remains live and the catch is legal. A1 was not out of bounds when he touched the pass, however, he is guilty of illegal participation in both (a) and (b). In (c), the ball is dead and there is no catch or foul. (2-4-1; 2-28; 4-3)

This is in agreement with the NCAA and the Redding Guide's current interpretation.

Interesting that they specified 2 steps. As if acknowledging that it would be too harsh to hit someone for IP for just stepping on the sideline while looking back for the ball and then jumping off that foot to play the ball.

That solved the problem for me. Thanks.

Before I read Welpe's post I would have said incomplete pass. I would not have a specific rule for making such a ruling, except to try and apply common sense. BTW, you keep holding others to a standard you cannot achieve, using reasoning you condemn in the posts of those who disagree. For example, you claim that because OOB is clearly defined, then everthing that is not OOB is inbounds. Yet, when I suggest that because you have to touch OOB to be out of bounds, it follows that you have to touch IB to be in bounds, you call that faulty logic. It seems to me that I (and others) used the same logic you did, just came to a different conclusion. If that is not the case, then where is the SPECIFIC Rule that defines inbounds? You cannot define inbounds by the OOB definition without assuming something.

Now, having said that, I surrender! You are correct in your interpretation, not because of your faulty logic, but because of a specific case reference in the book.

One more thing and I'll quit - it is my contention that you can have illegal participation while out of bounds. Example - A88 runs OOB, realizes what has happened, and stops. B22 intercepts, starts up the sideline, A88 reaches out, while both feet are still touching OOB, grabs him by the jersey and tackles him. Illegal participation, right? So, being guilty of IP doesn't necessarily IMPLY that any player is not OOB.

Not trying to be a smart___ here, but why do you need to define in bounds? All that we need to know is the definition of OOB - as it affects several things. If you're not OOB, not of those items are in play.

I'm happy you understand the rule now. I find it odd that I'm not right because of my logic, but because of a case reference... what logic was used to get to the case reference? :)

Peace.

I see your point. I would say that in the play we're talking about it DOES imply he's participating ... because if he wasn't - he would simply by OOB and the play would end as an incomplete pass. Since it doesn't, he's participating.

But you are correct that IP in GENERAL does not necessarily imply the player is not out of bounds - and your example illustrates that.

I guess it's just a symptom of my OCD. :rolleyes:

Now THAT'S a great question. I wish I knew. But, knowing some history behind FED opinions, the powers that be didn't necessarily use logic. :D

Perhaps someday, Mr. Crowder, I may be as omnipotent and all knowing as you (seem to think you are), but until then I'll just have to be satisfied being considered "otherwise intelligent" and muddking along as best I can to understand, rather than just read, these rules. Perhaps you might share some of your brilliance, with a less fortunate, and clarify a minor point about, "the case play I keep bringing up (you apparently believe) flies in the face of their interpretation".

I seem to recollect that the rules, rather clearly, indicate that the act of a player being forced OOB by an opponent, is ignored when that player returns in bounds at the first possible opportunity. I'm well aware my grasp of English may not be as acute as yours, but I was under the impression that "ignoring" something happened in this context equates, essentially, to that action not happening, at least to the point of affecting anything.

So, in your repetitive example, the forced OOB player's touching OOB did not render him OOB because his touching OOB was ignored due to his being forced out by an opponent, so as regards the rest of this example, he has NOT been considered OOB, which I believe is the essence of this particular rule.

You also suggest, somewhere in your kind instructions to us "otherwise intelligent" idiots, that a player forced OOB, who elects to stay OOB and return at his convenience somewhere else, would be guilty of Illegal Participation for returning inbounds and touching/catching a pass. A ruling I wholeheartedly agree with.

Here comes that logic block again, If we agree that OOB player (other than forced) cannot come back within the confines of the field and legally participate, why would a player who doesn't even bother to try and get back "inbounds" be allowed to participate by jumping up in the air, while still OOB, and redirect an errant pass to a teammate who had never gone OOB? That doesn't seem at all consistent, or sensible, at least to me.

Someone of your apparant (to you) superior knowledge and understanding should be able to simply explain the logic of that conclusion and help me find some semblance of logic in a one time (and never repeated) 2003 Case Book example, that may very likely have simply been a mistake, that people felt so obviously illogical, didn't merit formally correcting.

I must admit, and acknowledge that for someome who identifies himself as, "I'm not a FED guy... " it's really generous of you to share your knowledge and overall wonderfulness so freely.

The case book play was published multiple years but please go on believing what you want.

Also feel free to have the last word because I know you will take it, I'm done wrestling with the greased pig.

A receiver goes OOB without being forced or remains OOB after being forced out. He has lost his eligibility to touch a forward pass. He then leaves OOB and touches a pass which bounds off of him to another receive who catches it and advances the ball to the end zone for an apparent TD.

The original receiver's touch is a foul, but it does not kill the play because the receiver is no longer OOB.

It doesn't matter if the receiver goes back to the hash marks or merely jumps in the air over OOB, if he's not touching OOB, he's not OOB. Throw your flag and let play continue.