Brain teaser

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I think they may be a bit embarrassed at an oversight of long standing and are insincerely defending it.

I quite seriously doubt that. The NCAA rules committee especially is quick to make changes and will do so even after the changes for a year have been published if they deem necessary.

Are you saying you would really flag for IP in the harmless case where such a player caught the ball or batted it in such a way that it became dead anyway?

Yees I have and would have again under Fed. I've flagged receivers for stepping out and returning, even when they never touched a pass. That's the rule.

Now that I'm working only under NCAA, I will flag it for illegal touching.

If you have such a problem with the Federation "allowing another down" for IP, then you should petition them to change the rule so that it matches the NCAA. You really need to take this up with the rules committee.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I don't believe any of you arguing for this position would even try to call this consistently. In the ordinary case where the ball or player holding it just lands out of bounds, you would rule on the spirit of the rule, as ajmc calls for explicitly, and call it a dead ball and no foul. The only reason you'd call it IP would be to save the other team from its being a completed pass in some of the extreme cases discussed here. And that's just hypocrisy.

Please don't start telling us what we would do or call, especially when we have actually officiated high school (and in some cases) collegiate football games. Part of being an official is having the guts and integrity to make tough calls that are supported by rule, even if they appear to be unpopular or inequitable. Not being an official and telling us how we WILL do our jobs is rather hypocritical on your own behalf. But I really would not expect you to understand that.

Yeah, we know how the literal rules read. We know how a partly applicable case was stated in an interpretations book. But I don't believe a bit of it.

Let's just burn the rule book then, what's the use in even knowing it?

And that's about all I have to say about that. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get my equipment ready for a scrimmage tomorrow.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I quite seriously doubt that. The NCAA rules committee especially is quick to make changes and will do so even after the changes for a year have been published if they deem necessary.

This is much older than a year.

Yees I have and would have again under Fed. I've flagged receivers for stepping out and returning, even when they never touched a pass.

For "returning" by not touching the ground continuously?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Please don't start telling us what we would do or call, especially when we have actually officiated high school (and in some cases) collegiate football games. Part of being an official is having the guts and integrity to make tough calls that are supported by rule, even if they appear to be unpopular or inequitable.

I'm saying you've never even thought about flagging for IP on the basis of a player's leaving the ground after touching out of bounds.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

So A88 earns a flag for IP for not touching the ground when he touched the ball? That's going to make for some interesting, and difficult, calls along the sideline.

The right call is frequently interesting and difficult. We still make them anyway. It's not our job to decide the rule should be something different and call that. It's our job to call the rules as they are written. If there's loopholes in them, it's the committee's issue to resolve not ours.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I sit here stunned. Absolutely stunned.

I recognize that you're trying to throw me an olive branch here ... and I hate to crush it. But OMFG. No - we're not in agreement, not at all.

Yes. I have. Suggested it's IP. Not suggested, stated. It's Illegal freaking participation. How can you read what I just wrote and think otherwise? Goodness, you even quoted IN YOUR POST, and then BOLDED it - where I say "it is IP".

Sorry Mike, I just assumed you simply made a typo and went with your initial observation, "can I be more clearer than this: "NO ONE THINKS THIS IS LEGAL PARTICIPATION". I presumed after my telling you the rule number, you would have actually looked it up and realized your assessment is simply wrong.

I'll try and explain if for you Mike, in simple terms; there's really nothing wrong, or illegal, about going out of bounds. Anyone can do so whenever they choose without fear of penalty. The problem arises from the conditions under which they "return to the field during the down", the requirements for which are spelled out in NF: 9-6.

My apologies for misunderstanding your previous comment, I assumed you understood how utterly wrong you were and wisely corrected yourself.
Apparently my mistake, for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Sorry Mike, I just assumed you simply made a typo and went with your initial observation, "can I be more clearer than this: "NO ONE THINKS THIS IS LEGAL PARTICIPATION". I presumed after my telling you the rule number, you would have actually looked it up and realized your assessment is simply wrong.

It's hilarious that the guy who refuses to actually read a rule says this.

I'll try and explain if for you Mike, in simple terms; there's really nothing wrong, or illegal, about going out of bounds. Anyone can do so whenever they choose without fear of penalty. The problem arises from the conditions under which they "return to the field during the down", the requirements for which are spelled out in NF: 9-6.

You are quoting 9-6-1 which only applies to A or K who was blocked out of bounds. The full quote is:

"Prior to a change of possession, or when there is no change of possession, no player of A or K shall go out of bounds and return to the field during the down unless blocked out of bounds by an opponent. If a player is blocked out of bounds by an opponent and returns to the field during the down, he shall return at the first opportunity."

The rule that is relevant here is instead 9-6-2 (as I've said at least three times) which says in full:

"During the down, no player shall intentionally go out of bounds and return."

Notice how it doesn't say return to the field.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

The right call is frequently interesting and difficult. We still make them anyway. It's not our job to decide the rule should be something different and call that. It's our job to call the rules as they are written. If there's loopholes in them, it's the committee's issue to resolve not ours.

I can't believe that in Fed you're ever going to flag for IP the player who touches the sideline and then is not touching the ground when he touches the ball unless he does something that indicates he jumped so as to relieve himself of being out of bounds -- and probably not even then unless the ball bounces back into play. You've probably called the normal situation a dead ball a hundred times or more without a moment's hesitation.

It doesn't happen often that I conclude such a thing in any discussion forum about anything, but any of you who think about this and still say you'd administer such a play that way -- you're lying.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I'm saying you've never even thought about flagging for IP on the basis of a player's leaving the ground after touching out of bounds.

Oh I certainly have and I will when it happens. Of course now that I'm working NCAA rules, it will be for illegal touching.

It doesn't happen often that I conclude such a thing in any discussion forum about anything, but any of you who think about this and still say you'd administer such a play that way -- you're lying.

If this statement weren't so patently absurd, I think I may have been offended. But please, continue on with telling me how I would rule on something.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

The rule that is relevant here is instead 9-6-2 (as I've said at least three times) which says in full:

"During the down, no player shall intentionally go out of bounds and return."

Notice how it doesn't say return to the field.

Are you serious? Are you actually going to suggest that , "intentionally go out of bounds and return" might mean something other than return TO THE FIELD? Are you willing to hang your hat on that nail?

As I keep trying to tell you, and others who share your "opinion", do what you think is right. I have no problem dealing with this issue the way I see it. If you are comfortable dealing with it the way you see it, knock yourself out - Good Luck.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Are you serious? Are you actually going to suggest that , "intentionally go out of bounds and return" might mean something other than return TO THE FIELD? Are you willing to hang your hat on that nail?

As I keep trying to tell you, and others who share your "opinion", do what you think is right. I have no problem dealing with this issue the way I see it. If you are comfortable dealing with it the way you see it, knock yourself out - Good Luck.

If it meant return to the field, it would say return to the field just like 9-6-1 does. The fact that 9-6-1 and 9-6-2 state it differently is actually important.

I will hang my hat on the rules every time. You keep adding words to the rules to make them mean what you want them to mean.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

If it meant return to the field, it would say return to the field just like 9-6-1 does. The fact that 9-6-1 and 9-6-2 state it differently is actually important.

I will hang my hat on the rules every time. You keep adding words to the rules to make them mean what you want them to mean.

Important? OK, but you forgot to mention exactly where, your strict adherence to the rule, tells you where the OOB player is prohibited from returning to. At some point, Eastshire, you will hopefully come to accept that we do a much more effective job when understand what a rule actually means, in addition to what it says.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Important? OK, but you forgot to mention exactly where, your strict adherence to the rule, tells you where the OOB player is prohibited from returning to. At some point, Eastshire, you will hopefully come to accept that we do a much more effective job when understand what a rule actually means, in addition to what it says.

Actually, I haven't. He's returning to not being OOB, as we've said quite often.

When what you say a rule means is the opposite of what it says, you're not being effective, you're not enforcing the rule.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Actually, I haven't. He's returning to not being OOB, as we've said quite often.

When what you say a rule means is the opposite of what it says, you're not being effective, you're not enforcing the rule.

If Out of Bounds is being beyond the confines of the playing field (as defined in NF: 1-1-2), where does someone return to, if not within the confines of the field of play? Jibberish works for some people, but not all.

Just a suggestion, but when your best possible explanation of something is more confusing and sounds sillier than your original observation, you might consider just not saying anything.

I have never suggested, "When what you say a rule means is the opposite of what it says", I have simply opined that the interpretation that a player, who has absolutely satisfied the requirements of becoming OOB, somehow loses that designation by simply jumping up into the air, while remaining outside the playing field, is simply inaccurate and makes absolutely no common sense or serves any purpose related to the game of football, and therefore I conclude is incorrect.

Forgive me for repeating myself, but if you can provide ANY rational explanation, or even suggestion, why such a contradictory concept should even be remotely considered, I'll be happy to reevaluate my position.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by ajmc

If Out of Bounds is being beyond the confines of the playing field (as defined in NF: 1-1-2), where does someone return to, if not within the confines of the field of play? Jibberish works for some people, but not all.

I'd hate to break it to you, but not only does 1-1-2 not contain any definitions, it doesn't even mention out of bounds. OOB is actually defined in 2-29 and of course you just don't like what it says. As to where someone is returning to, as I said in just my last post giving further evidence you don't actually read what anyone is saying, is not OOB.

Just a suggestion, but when your best possible explanation of something is more confusing and sounds sillier than your original observation, you might consider just not saying anything.

I have never suggested, "When what you say a rule means is the opposite of what it says", I have simply opined that the interpretation that a player, who has absolutely satisfied the requirements of becoming OOB, somehow loses that designation by simply jumping up into the air, while remaining outside the playing field, is simply inaccurate and makes absolutely no common sense or serves any purpose related to the game of football, and therefore I conclude is incorrect.

Forgive me for repeating myself, but if you can provide ANY rational explanation, or even suggestion, why such a contradictory concept should even be remotely considered, I'll be happy to reevaluate my position.

I agree that including airborne players who last touched OOB as OOB players is rational. That's the choice basketball made. However, it's not the choice that football made. Having OOB players only include those actually touching OOB is also a rational choice, your dislike of it notwithstanding.

You are ignoring the rule because you don't like it, not because it isn't rational.

Anyways, this will be my last post on the matter as it's clear your more interested in what you want the rules to be than what the rules actually are.