Brain teaser

[Welpe]

Oh lord no not this play again!!!

Cue the violent shakes and cold sweats..."is touching is touching is touching!"

Reddings guide illegal participation

[Welpe]

OK seriously, for NCAA I have illegal touching by A88. Loss of down at the previous spot.

7-3-4

Eligibility Lost by Going Out of Bounds

ARTICLE 4. No eligible offensive receiver who goes out of bounds during a
down shall touch a legal forward pass in the field of play or end zones or while
airborne until it has been touched by an opponent or official (A.R. 7-3-4-I-III).

[Exception: This does not apply to an eligible offensive player who attempts
to return inbounds immediately after going out of bounds due to contact by an opponent (A.R. 7-3-4-IV)].

PENALTY—Loss of down at the previous spot [S16 and S9].


AR 7-3-4-V

Eligible receiver A44 is running a pass pattern near the sideline. As
a legal forward pass comes toward him, he accidentally steps on
the sideline, leaps, muffs the pass into the air, returns to the ground
inbounds, grabs the ball and lands on his knees inbounds with the
ball firmly in his possession.

RULING: Illegal touching. Penalty— loss of down at the previous spot.

A44 lost his eligibility by stepping out of bounds and did not regain his eligibility before touching the ball the second time.


AND....just to prove that an airborne receiver that was out of bounds is no longer out of bounds, I offer the following AR:

AR 7-3-6-VII

A86 is legally blocked out of bounds by B18 at Team B’s two-yard
line. A86, while attempting an immediate return to the field of play,
leaps from out of bounds and is airborne as he receives A16’s legal
forward pass. He lands in Team B’s end zone completing the catch.

RULING: Touchdown (Rules 4-1-3-c, 4-2-3-a, 7-3-4 Exception and
8-2-1-b).

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Oh lord no not this play again!!!

Cue the violent shakes and cold sweats..."is touching is touching is touching!"

Reddings guide illegal participation

Somethings are what they are. NF: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."

In the example, (it is my interpretation & belief) that when A88 first touched the ground out of bounds, he fulfilled the requirement of being out of bounds. What he does thereafter doesn't much matter. So when he jumps up into the air (5 yards out of bounds), all he is is an out of bounds player jumping up into the air, as opposed to an out of bounds player standing still, but still an out of bounds player.

NF: 2-29-3, "A loose ball is out of bounds when it touches anything, including a player or game official who is out of bounds."

[Welpe]

As a note for NFHS, I believe the Redding Guide has this as illegal participation.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Welpe

As a note for NFHS, I believe the Redding Guide has this as illegal participation.

I thought that was removed? I haven't gotten my 2010 guide yet.

[AUgrad2006]

After reading several of the points laid out in last year's post on this topic I have to say that there is definitely a loophole the size of Mark Mangino in rule 2-29 and the Federation would be doing all a favor to clarify the wording. There are technicalities all through the rulebook and most make sense but this one seems to fly in the face of logic.

Why would it be expressly prohibited for the player to participate on the field of play but be acceptable by rule for him to participate while suspended in the air outside the field of play? It just seems to defy the spirit of the rule that an out-of-bounds player can just jump in the air and legally participate.

That being said the text of the rule is pretty clear. Touching is touching.

If it's me, you can bet that the receiver's foot sure looked like it was still on the ground or touching that nonplayer next to him or the chain equipment.

In most cases I know how I would rule, this is an exception. But I do know that I'm certainly not going to ridicule someone for having a different opinion. Jus' sayin...

[Reffing Rev.]

Pandora's Box...

Now, I get the rule, I get the play, I get the ruling, and on a test I'd call it that way, but just for fun, here is why I don't like it...

So...what if substitute A88 standing in his team box jumps up and does the same thing...technically he's not out of bounds so I guess his touching doesn't cause the ball to become dead even though everyone in the entire county knows the play is over, but you might just have an IW for common sense. I guess you might say he "otherwise participated in the play" and thus is guilty of IP.

I'll just call incomplete pass.

What if A88 had been previously ejected, or there's another player wearing #88 currently in the game, or A88 isn't wearing legal equipment...

BREAKING NEWS: A new play from the rulebook loophole crew: QB A1 rolls right, throws the pass to cheerleader #7 who is in the air after a baskettoss on the track, who while airborne and NOT out of bounds, catches and tosses the ball to A2 who runs for a touchdown.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by waltjp

I thought that was removed? I haven't gotten my 2010 guide yet.

That I'm not sure about. It would be consistent with the NCAA in treating the act as illegal.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Welpe

That I'm not sure about. It would be consistent with the NCAA in treating the act as illegal.

Yes, but it wouldn't be consistent with their own rule book. Didn't realize this play was a rehash... we appear to have gotten to the right answers already - NCAA - illegal touching, FED - IP.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Yes, but it wouldn't be consistent with their own rule book.

Consistent by interpretation. That was the published Fed interp a few years ago (and what the Redding interp is based upon), it has been since removed from the casebook but a change has never been published.

IP or not, it is clearly not incomplete.

[Umpmazza]

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



Just kidding...

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by ajmc

In the example, (it is my interpretation & belief) that when A88 first touched the ground out of bounds, he fulfilled the requirement of being out of bounds. What he does thereafter doesn't much matter.

As long as we're clear that this is your "interpretation & belief," and yours alone, we can ignore it. The rest of us will rely on authoritative sources and accepted interpretations published by FED and other sources to back our opinions.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by waltjp

As long as we're clear that this is your "interpretation & belief," and yours alone, we can ignore it. The rest of us will rely on authoritative sources and accepted interpretations published by FED and other sources to back our opinions.

As I've tried to suggest many times, waltjp, I respect your right to form your opinion as you see fit, although I'm not always very impressed with the way you choose to express your conclusions. The important thing is really whether anyone is comfortable with the opinion they've formed, and I am absolutely comfortable with my interpretation and the logic I've used to reach it.

You get to choose whatever "authoritative sources" you like to support your conclusion, and if you have access to any "accepted interpretations published by FED", I'd appreciate your sharing them.

"Jaybird" do yourself a favor, understand and accept the reality that you haven't quite earned the right to use words like "therefore", "Proof positive" or "just something fabricated to satisfy a desire" to add any substantial verification to what amounts to what are just your "opinions".

[Welpe]

I have an idea, let's just cut and paste our posts from the previous thread. It'll save us a lot of time.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by ajmc

The important thing is really whether anyone is comfortable with the opinion they've formed, and I am absolutely comfortable with my interpretation and the logic I've used to reach it.

I really can't stand it when someone reads the rules, invents some opinion that is contrary to those rules, and then justifies it by calling it interpretation.

NF: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."

There is the rule. It tells you quite clearly whether a person is defined as Out Of Bounds.

(it is my interpretation & belief) that when A88 first touched the ground out of bounds, he fulfilled the requirement of being out of bounds. What he does thereafter doesn't much matter.

At the moment he touched, you're right, he's out of bounds. But you've taken this to some bizarre extreme to think that a player once out of bounds is always out of bounds. Completely false, and not consistent with other rules in the book. One example - a player forced out, trying to come back in who leaps, catches, and lands in - is IN... but by "your interpretation" or logic, this player is OUT because he was out when he went out and what he does thereafter doesn't much matter.

Luckily, we have rules to tell us whether this airborne player is out. He's not - because he does not fulfill the definition of Out Of Bounds.