Brain teaser

[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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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

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.

Excuse me Mike, but nobody is inventing a damn thing except those who have recently manufactured this absolutely silly interpretation that a player who has clearly established himself as being OOB can somehow, miraculously retain his status of being Inbounds by simply jmping up into the air while remaining out side the boundry lines. Thus far NOBODY has been able to rationally explain the common sense of that bizarre interpretation. If you suggest this is "consistent with other rules in the book" you are reading something other than any NFHS rule Book ever written

As for your example of a player being FORCED OOB, that is a completely different matter. If you would like an example of how downright stupid your idea is try this; A88 runs OOB and continues behind the team area where he jumps up into the air and, while ariborne, redirects a pass thrown over the team area, to A89 who has never left the field of play, but has wandered 30 yards downfield and catches the redirected pass and advances for a TD.

You're going to allow the score? If so that's on you, I'm going to kill the play as an incomplete pass the instant A88 touches the ball behind his team area, and move on to the next down. Good luck with your score.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Excuse me Mike, but nobody is inventing a damn thing except those who have recently manufactured this absolutely silly interpretation that a player who has clearly established himself as being OOB can somehow, miraculously retain his status of being Inbounds by simply jmping up into the air while remaining out side the boundry lines. Thus far NOBODY has been able to rationally explain the common sense of that bizarre interpretation. If you suggest this is "consistent with other rules in the book" you are reading something other than any NFHS rule Book ever written. As for your example of a player being FORCED OOB, that is a completely different matter.

I'm really not sure what got you so belligerent. I'm not "recently inventing" anything. The book quite clearly states what makes a player out of bounds. I will restate what I said earlier since you seem to have intentionally misunderstood. Your concept / interpretation / whatever that a player that was previously out of bounds but currently in the air is still out of bounds is NOT consistent with the case of a player forced OOB. Such a player is not out of bounds, although he's not yet IN bounds either. You seem to assume that not out of bounds somehow means IN bounds. Obviously, you can be neither. Any airborne player ANYWHERE is neither in nor out of bounds at that moment. This IS consistent with the forced OOB player returning and landing in.

If you would like an example of how downright stupid your idea is try this; A88 runs OOB and continues behind the team area where he jumps up into the air and, while ariborne, redirects a pass thrown over the team area, to A89 who has never left the field of play, but has wandered 30 yards downfield and catches the redirected pass and advances for a TD.

Yeah, that's stupid alright. Your point? The question was ... by what RULE (not made up rule... real rule) would you rule this not to be a score.

You're going to allow the score? If so that's on you, I'm going to kill the play as an incomplete pass the instant A88 touches the ball behind his team area, and move on to the next down. Good luck with your score.

Try really hard not to put words in people's mouths. Did I EVER state that I would allow this score? No. Not even close, and no, I wouldn't. However, just calling it an incomplete pass is quite simply incorrect. Should the offense try something like this and instead have the defense catch the ball - you dang well better let defense keep the ball. Me saying your "interpretation" is not only wrong, but complete fabrication does NOT imply I would let this play score.

[Welpe]

Trust me Mike, you will get absolutely no where.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Any airborne player ANYWHERE is neither in nor out of bounds at that moment. This IS consistent with the forced OOB player returning and landing in.

Yeah, that's stupid alright. Your point? The question was ... by what RULE (not made up rule... real rule) would you rule this not to be a score.


Try really hard not to put words in people's mouths. Did I EVER state that I would allow this score? No. Not even close, and no, I wouldn't.

Yes Mike, my example was ridiculous, but it illustrates the point in question. Either the score would stand, or it would not. If you agree "not", why not? If you follow your interpretation that the player touching the ball, who had previously satisfied the requirement of being OOB, somehow reestablished himself as being inbounds by jumping up into the air (even though remaining clearly beyond the sideline), then as ridiculous as it seems, there would be no reason for the score not to count.

Forgive me, but that conclusion makes absolutely no sense to me, and is contrary to the basic concept of the game being played within the confines of a "field of play".

Where does your conclusion, "Any airborne player ANYWHERE is neither in nor out of bounds at that moment." come from? Actually a player who has been inbounds and leaps across the sideline is absolutely considered inbounds until he comes down (or touches something) OOB.

I'm not making up a rule, it simply makes common sense to me that when a player has completed the requirements of being OOB (by touching the ground while OOB) he is OOB. As for a player being forced OOB, the rule is that his touching OOB should be ignored if, and when, forced, although he would be required to return inbounds immediately at the first opportunity to regain playing status.

Absent being forced OOB, A or K cannot legally participate in play after being OOB and B or R can only participate after returning within the confines of the field. Therefore, what sense does it make, either football sense or common sense, to allow such a player, who has satisfied the requirement of being OOB to participate while he is still beyond the playing field?

No, I don't believe I'm "making up a rule", I believe the interpretation suggesting leaping into the air after being OOB, somehow eliminates being OOB is a silly semantic attempt to subvert the practical intent and application of NF:2-29-1.