Brain teaser

[MD Longhorn]

Know what? I'm really sick of the completely unnecessary but constantly dripping sarcasm from your direction.

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

It's not. It's not consistent, or sensible. Do you read? Or do you just look for nuggets to jump on?

I NEVER said the play was legal, and never said it was a TD. I say that the OP is ILLEGAL PARTICIPATION. Which is what you allude to above. The play, however, is not dead. Your initial contention was to rule this an incomplete pass out of bounds. Not only have you been told you're wrong about 25 times, you've actually finally gotten yourself to the right answer in the course of telling me I'm wrong. Kind of funny, really. Your answer - incomplete pass - is wrong. In both codes.

If the reply is laced with sarcasm and condescention, I, like Welpe, am done.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

Appreciate your input, Eastshire, but I can't agree with your assessment. NF:7-5-6-d advises, "A player who is eligible at the start of the down remains eligible throughout the down.", so eligibility is never "lost".

"Illegal Touching" (NF: 7-5-13" applies to, "An Ineligible A player has illegally touched a forward pass if he bats, muffs or catches a legal forward pass, unless the pass has first been touched by B", so any player (eligible or ineligible) who touches a pass OOB has not violated any rule and deserves no penalty. The touching simply kills the play.

If that A player (eligible or ineligible) is OOB (unforced) and comes back onto the field and participates (by touching, batting, catching or other wise participating in the play) they then commit the foul of Illegal Participation (NF: 9-6).

NF: 1-1-2 clearly defines, "The game football is played with an inflated ball by two teams on a retangular field 360 by 160 feet.", and a number of rules, including those mentioned above, deal with separating that playing surface from that which is considered OOB.

For more than 100 years there didn't seem to be much confusion about the separation of Inbounds and OOB, until this "unusual" interpretation briefly surfaced suggesting that a player clearly OOB could eliminate his inability to legally participate by simply jumping up into the air, while OOB.

I'm afraid I can't accept your advice, "Throw your flag and let play continue", because unless and until that OOB player comes back onto the playing surface and participates in the play, he has not done anything wrong.

My judgment, based on my understanding of the intent of this basic football concept (separating inbounds from OOB) is that considering that touching by an OOB player, whether touching the ground or jumping back into the air, produces the same result, of killing the ball.

As I've repeated stated, my judgment dictates ONLY my behavior, you need to determine what YOU believe correct and and follow your judgment.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Know what? I'm really sick of the completely unnecessary but constantly dripping sarcasm from your direction.

If the reply is laced with sarcasm and condescention, I, like Welpe, am done.

2 bits of advice: (1) People in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks. (2) If you do decide to throw rocks, don't anticipate any sympathy from whining that rocks are being thrown back.

Mr. Welpe, Your inability to grab the "pig" may not be because he's greased, rather it may be much more the fault that you are trying to grab him while wearing boxing gloves (i.e. a really dumb argument).

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by ajmc

For more than 100 years there didn't seem to be much confusion about the separation of Inbounds and OOB, until this "unusual" interpretation briefly surfaced suggesting that a player clearly OOB could eliminate his inability to legally participate by simply jumping up into the air, while OOB.

But no one is saying this. In fact, quite the opposite, the point is that by jumping into the air the receiver is illegally participating in the play (or illegally touching the pass depending on the code).

What he is not doing is touching a pass while OOB. This is made clear by the case play where a receiver who has been forced OOB jumps in the air, catches the pass and lands on the field has made a valid catch.

A player in the air over OOB may be illegally participating, but he is not OOB. Again, flag the foul and let play continue.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

But no one is saying this. In fact, quite the opposite, the point is that by jumping into the air the receiver is illegally participating in the play (or illegally touching the pass depending on the code).

What he is not doing is touching a pass while OOB. This is made clear by the case play where a receiver who has been forced OOB jumps in the air, catches the pass and lands on the field has made a valid catch.

A player in the air over OOB may be illegally participating, but he is not OOB. Again, flag the foul and let play continue.

Don't know about any "code" other than NFHS. A player who is OOB is NOT illegally participating when he touches a pass, nor is he guilty of illegally touching the pass, provided he is an eligible receiver.

When A player is "forced OOB by an opponent", his being OOB is ignored, so in essence his being OOB never happened, which is why his completing an airborne catch inbounds, is not considered Illegal participation, provided it is judged he, " returnes to the field during the down, he shall return at the first opportunity."

The issue we're talking about has nothing to do with being forced OOB. The suggestion is that a player who has satisfied the requirement of touching OOB, who remainsoutside the boundry lines OOB, can touch (bat or otherwise redirect) a forward pass back into the field of play, where a teammate can legally complete a catch, by simply jumping up into the air, while OOB. I don't accept that interpretation as I don't believe it makes any sense, common or football.

The example previously suggested, although totally ridiculous, illustrates the falicy of this interpretation. A88 (an eligible receiver) voluntarily leaves the field, and runs behind the team area. A throws a pass way OOB that A88 emerges from behind his team area, jumps up into the air and redirects that pass to A44 (another eligible receiver) who catches the pass, clearly inbounds, and advances to the EZ. A88 has not committed Illegal Participation as he has not returned inbounds. Returning inbounds is a requirement of NF: 9-6-1 and 2.

A88 is not illegally touching the pass, as he is an eligible receiver when he touched the ball, provided he began the down as an eligible receiver. Since neither penalty applies, are you going to allow the score? Common sense suggests, (at least from my interpretation) that since A satisfied all the requirements of being OOB, his subsequent touching of that pass, whether he is in constant contact with the ground OR NOT, renders the ball dead.

[Eastshire]

Rule 2-29-1

"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."

Rule 2-29-3

"A loose ball is out of bounds when it touches anything, including a player or game official that is out of bounds."

A88 has not met any of the requirements of 2-29-1 nor has the ball met the requirements of 2-29-3 at the point of touching. A88 has returned at the point of touching and is illegally participating.

B gets the choice: TD for A or the penalty.

The bottom line here is you are making up you own rule 2-29-1. Everyone else is using the one provided by the Fed.

[Umpmazza]

I have intentional grounding... 5 yrds from previous spot, and loss of down...



Just kidding...

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Don't know about any "code" other than NFHS. A player who is OOB is NOT illegally participating when he touches a pass, nor is he guilty of illegally touching the pass, provided he is an eligible receiver.

.

correct me if I'm wrong, but if a "A" player goes OOB on his own he it is Illegal Participating?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Umpmazza

correct me if I'm wrong, but if a "A" player goes OOB on his own he it is Illegal Participating?

9-6-2 "During the down, no player shall intentionally go out of bounds and return." Penalty: "Illegal participation (Arts. 1, 2, 3, 4a [live-ball, basic spot]) – (Arts. 4b-f [live-ball, previous spot]) – (S28) – 15 yards."

So if he goes out of bounds but does not return, he is not illegally participating, the pass is just incomplete due to touching a player who is out of bounds.

Unlike 9-6-1 which specifies returning to the field, 9-6-2 merely says returns.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

A88 has not met any of the requirements of 2-29-1 nor has the ball met the requirements of 2-29-3 at the point of touching. A88 has returned at the point of touching and is illegally participating.

B gets the choice: TD for A or the penalty.

The bottom line here is you are making up you own rule 2-29-1. Everyone else is using the one provided by the Fed.

Let's make sure we're addressing the same question before we start defining the "bottom line". The scenario I've been addressing relates to a player who runs OOB completely on his own. No forcing out of any type. In running OOB he repeatedly touches the ground OOB, satisfying ALL THE NF:2-29-1 criteria for being OOB.

After, and while he remains, outside the field of play he jumps up into the air. The question is does he somehow retain the ability to legally participate, and affect, action simply because he has ceased touching the ground? All of the activity involved happens beyond the playing field boundry lines.

Please save yourself some wasted effort, I know exactly what NF:2-29-1, 2 &3 states and am not disputing the wording, I do not agree with the interpretation of those words that suggests that simply because a player jumps up into the air while OOB, after having completed being OOB by touching the ground OOB, he can continue to influence play.

Try as I may, I am unable to make any sense whatsoever to interpreting this, otherwise simple and straightforward definition, to accomodate this interpretation. I am unable to imagine an explanation of this interpretation that is logical in either a "football" sense or basic common sense. Thus far, NOBODY has come even close to offering a rational explanation for this interpretation serving any possible purpose, other than a gramatical excuse, "because it says so".

Sorry, I don't believe, or accept, that football rules are deliberately crafted to make no sense and serve no purpose, although their are numerous examples where they are worded inartfully. Any rule is only the written presentation of a thought, a thought intended to serve a purpose that is deemed necessary. I can't find the purpose in this interpretation.

So, if you really want to help me get to a different, "bottom line" show me where this "unique" interpretation makes the slightest bit of actual sense, either to the game, or in general. The arguments that this situation fits any existing penalty don't seem to hold water and allowing the results of such a play stand defies credulity, and the basic objective of the game (NF: 1-1-1). So, until I can rationally understand and explain otherwise, I'm comfortable with considering the situation as meeting the requirements, and intentions, of NF: 2-29-1. You go with what you're comfortable understanding and explaining.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Let's make sure we're addressing the same question before we start defining the "bottom line". The scenario I've been addressing relates to a player who runs OOB completely on his own. No forcing out of any type. In running OOB he repeatedly touches the ground OOB, satisfying ALL THE NF:2-29-1 criteria for being OOB.

After, and while he remains, outside the field of play he jumps up into the air. The question is does he somehow retain the ability to legally participate, and affect, action simply because he has ceased touching the ground? All of the activity involved happens beyond the playing field boundry lines.

Please save yourself some wasted effort, I know exactly what NF:2-29-1, 2 &3 states and am not disputing the wording, I do not agree with the interpretation of those words that suggests that simply because a player jumps up into the air while OOB, after having completed being OOB by touching the ground OOB, he can continue to influence play.

Try as I may, I am unable to make any sense whatsoever to interpreting this, otherwise simple and straightforward definition, to accomodate this interpretation. I am unable to imagine an explanation of this interpretation that is logical in either a "football" sense or basic common sense. Thus far, NOBODY has come even close to offering a rational explanation for this interpretation serving any possible purpose, other than a gramatical excuse, "because it says so".

Sorry, I don't believe, or accept, that football rules are deliberately crafted to make no sense and serve no purpose, although their are numerous examples where they are worded inartfully. Any rule is only the written presentation of a thought, a thought intended to serve a purpose that is deemed necessary. I can't find the purpose in this interpretation.

So, if you really want to help me get to a different, "bottom line" show me where this "unique" interpretation makes the slightest bit of actual sense, either to the game, or in general. The arguments that this situation fits any existing penalty don't seem to hold water and allowing the results of such a play stand defies credulity, so until I can rationally understand and explain otherwise, I'm comfortable with considering the situation meeting the requirements of NF: 2-29-1. You go with what you're comfortable understanding and explaining.

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.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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,

[MD Longhorn]

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).

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

But if I just put one more nail in it,

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