|
|||
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.
|
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
[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.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
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.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
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.
|
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Peace.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
Quote:
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 was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
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. Last edited by ajmc; Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 08:12pm. |
|
|||
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.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers Last edited by Welpe; Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 10:54pm. |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
just a brain teaser | cmathews | Football | 6 | Tue Sep 16, 2008 05:53am |
brain teaser | Andy | Softball | 14 | Sun Oct 21, 2007 07:26pm |
Slightly OT: Brain Teaser | rotationslim | Basketball | 9 | Mon Apr 24, 2006 06:59am |
Off season brain teaser | FredFan7 | Football | 11 | Thu Mar 09, 2006 06:35pm |
Brain teaser. | Mike Simonds | Football | 4 | Tue Jul 22, 2003 01:34pm |