Brain teaser

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

Alfie, I'm glad you're comfortable with your position but it has no basis in reality.

My authoritative source is the FED rule book. Try looking up 2-29, the definition of "Out of bounds." This has been offered to you numerous times and you continue to dismiss it and replace it with your own 'common sense.' That's nothing but common foolery.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Alfie, I'm glad you're comfortable with your position but it has no basis in reality.

My authoritative source is the FED rule book. Try looking up 2-29, the definition of "Out of bounds." This has been offered to you numerous times and you continue to dismiss it and replace it with your own 'common sense.' That's nothing but common foolery.

Sorry Waltjp, but I'm still waiting for you to share your, "accepted interpretations published by FED", about this issue. We're both very familiar with NF:2-29 and it does not address this question.

If you have a problem with "common foolery" please be kind enough to explain how the ridiculous example I used, to highlight the absense of logic behind your interpretation makes any common, or football, sense whatsoever. On the contrary it subverts and makes a mockery of the idea of applying basic common sense to the enforecement of rules in general.

However, if you're satisfied with following an interpretation that you CANNOT rationally explain, that decision is yours to make. Good luck with it.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by ajmc

If you have a problem with "common foolery" please be kind enough to explain how the ridiculous example I used, to highlight the absense of logic behind your interpretation makes any common, or football, sense whatsoever. On the contrary it subverts and makes a mockery of the idea of applying basic common sense to the enforecement of rules in general.

However, if you're satisfied with following an interpretation that you CANNOT rationally explain, that decision is yours to make. Good luck with it.

I wasn't going to jump in again, but I have to. You made a ridiculous example that CANNOT be a touchdown (exactly like the OP) - and use this to "prove" that your interpretation of the rule is correct. This would be Example 1 on a logic professor's board when he's explaining Fallacy.

The OP (and your example) aren't TD's ... but not because this invented status of "in bounds" was both created and subverted by the examples. I invite you to show me where the rules say anything about "in bounds" wrt a situation even remotely like what we're talking about.

Thing is ... a player is out of bounds... or he's NOT out of bounds - that's it. And NOT out of bounds does not necessarily mean IN bounds (not that that matters, really).

You actually, FINALLY, found the right word that leads you to the right rule that allows a referee to not allow this play to stand. You don't have to invent a misinterpretation of out-of-bounds which is actually invalid in another similar situation. You HAVE a rule - and it's not the one you refer to. However, I'll leave you to figure it out, should you stop being obstinate and try to become an actual official that follows the rules we're given. You choose not to try ... no skin of my nose - and NOW I'm out.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

However, I'll leave you to figure it out, should you stop being obstinate and try to become an actual official that follows the rules we're given. You choose not to try ... no skin of my nose - and NOW I'm out.

I'm really hope you feel a lot better Mike, and am glad you still have all your nose skin, now go take a pill and relax. I fully understand there's no definition of being "Inbounds" and understand it might be helpful if there was, but I really don't think it's that big a deal as the game has survived for 130+ years without one.

I have never once suggested to anyone how they should consider this situation, but have suggested only how I consider it, which boils down to little more than, "much ado about nothing".

I never said that "my interpretation is correct", I said that my interpretation makes sense to me and I would be comfortable explaining the logic behind my interpretation. Honestly, I can not imagine explaining rationally how the interpretation that the ball remains alive under these circumstances, and to date NOBODY has been able to offer any rational explanation either, outside of demanding, "That's what it says". I don't accept that conclusion.

You should do what you believe is the correct thing to do, which is what I plan to do should this situation arise. I'm not making up my own rule, I simply don't accept your explanation of what you think NF: 2-29-1 means, because I cannot make any sense out of it and it seems clearly contrary to the objective of the rules being rational and reasonable and serving a purpose.

As I've suggested, repeatedly before, if you could explain some rational that makes the slightest bit of sense to the interpretation of a player who has satisfied the requirements, of being OOB, can somehow return to being legally able to participate, although remaining clearly OOB, by simply jumping up into the air, I'll be happy to reconsider my position. Until then, I'll stick with my instincts, if that's OK with you.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Sorry Waltjp, but I'm still waiting for you to share your, "accepted interpretations published by FED", about this issue. We're both very familiar with NF:2-29 and it does not address this question.

If you have a problem with "common foolery" please be kind enough to explain how the ridiculous example I used, to highlight the absense of logic behind your interpretation makes any common, or football, sense whatsoever. On the contrary it subverts and makes a mockery of the idea of applying basic common sense to the enforecement of rules in general.

However, if you're satisfied with following an interpretation that you CANNOT rationally explain, that decision is yours to make. Good luck with it.

Alf, the truth is you don't like the rule and don't want to enforce it the way it's written. You hide behind common sense and logic to avoid reality. Be honest, have you talked to any other officials in your area about this play? Do they share your reasoning? - or do they walk away mumbling to themselves?

The rule clearly says that a player is out of bounds when he is "touching" something that is out of bounds. Unless you can prove that the something is air you have no argument.

The rule disputes your stance. What documentation can you produce to show the rule to be incorrect?

[Welpe]

Walt do you have the necessary college degree to analyze the complex, verbose phrase "is touching"?

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Walt do you have the necessary college degree to analyze the complex, verbose phrase "is touching"?

Well, I ain't no English major, but I thunk I learned it good, back in 1st grade.

[MD Longhorn]

What? You mean "is touching" and "touched at some point in the past" are not the same thing?

I've given your example ... twice. But you ignore it. So why bother.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Alf, the truth is you don't like the rule and don't want to enforce it the way it's written. You hide behind common sense and logic to avoid reality. Be honest, have you talked to any other officials in your area about this play? Do they share your reasoning? - or do they walk away mumbling to themselves?

The rule clearly says that a player is out of bounds when he is "touching" something that is out of bounds. Unless you can prove that the something is air you have no argument.

The rule disputes your stance. What documentation can you produce to show the rule to be incorrect?

Well, you've got me Waltjp, I'll admit I deliberately try and, "hide behind common sense and logic" as much as I can. I'm still waiting for you or ANBODY to simply state some example, some rational for your interpretation NOT to be absolutely ridiculous and totally contrary to the basic concept of the game of football. Given such evidence I'll be happy to reconsider my position, until then I'm going to stick with that "common sense and logic" stuff.

There is no dispute that the rule requires a player to touch something OOB, before completing the process of having become OOB. I have yet to read that part of the rule that requires that player to continue touching, once there has been touching, which made that player OOB. Perhaps that's one of those, ""accepted interpretations published by FED" I'm anxiously waiting for.

I tried to demonstrate an extreme and silly example of what your interpretation would allow, as a means of demonstrating just how dopey your argument seems and where it could lead. As improbable and nutty that example was, under your interpretation, it would be legal.

So save us both a lot of time, and stop and think about what your interpretation would allow, which is exactly opposite to what the rules try and generate, rather than continuing to bellow the same point about what the rule actually says, and doesn't say.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I'm still waiting for you or ANBODY to simply state some example, some rational for your interpretation NOT to be absolutely ridiculous and totally contrary to the basic concept of the game of football.

Alfie, why are 3 points scored when you kick it through the uprights for a field goal, but only 1 point when kicked through the same uprights following a TD?

Because that's what the rule book says.

Why is a player not considered out of bounds when he's not touching something that's out of bounds?

Because that's what the rule book says.

Common sense and logic tell me there's no advantage gained when a player momentarily grasps and then releases an opponent's facemask but the rule book wants me to call this a foul.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Perhaps that's one of those, ""accepted interpretations published by FED" I'm anxiously waiting for.

Is the rule book too obtuse for you?

BTW - what do you have to back up your ridiculous opinion?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Is the rule book too obtuse for you?

BTW - what do you have to back up your ridiculous opinion?

Just that old, "common sense and logic thing", Walt. It's not about being "obtuse" (nice word) or verbosity, it's simply a matter of understanding the game and what it's all about. You keep reaching for analogies and each one you grasp is further from relating.

It's not about scoring 1 point versus 3, not about a player safety issue like grasping a face mask. It's more about NF: 1-1-1 and 1-1-2 than all the nonsense you're trying to find.

I can't determine when NF:2-29 was last revised, if it ever was revised but the Oficials manual suggests the rule regarding "going out of bounds and returning applies to A or K only" was part of the 1991 revisions. I wonder why nobody apparently had a problem with this whole situation until a couple of years ago when someone (don't know who exactly) floated this nonsense about a player who has clearly established himself as being OOB, somehow majically retained the status of being Inbounds, by simply jumping up into the air, while remaining OOB, because the wording is "Is touching" rather than just "touched".

Please note, the rule doesn't say anything about "continuing to touch", it simply states when that player is touching he becomes OOB, as opposed to when he might be airborne beyond the sideline/endline but has yet to touch down. However, when he is touching he becomes OOB. Where does it mention anything about him no longer being OOB if his touching stops or is interrupted?

Much more importantly, what could conceivably be the reason for allowing this player, having satisfied the requirements of being OOB, to lose that designation, which according to your daffy interpretation allows him to participate in the game, even though he is still clearly outside the confines of a "retangular field 360 by 160 feet? (NF:1-1-2) Sorry, there's that common sense and logic thing again. If you've got additional insight, I'm willing to consider it, but please spare me all your gramatical silliness.

Did the game change? The object of the game change? I don't think so. For me, it's just a lot easier to understand that this "unique" interpretation, and what it wouild suggest would happen, is just so silly, so contradictory, so ridiculous it's simply NOT right.

If you want to believe that is what NF: 2-29 is telling us, you can believe it. I do not accept your interpretation of what you conclude 2-29 instructs.

[waltjp]

Is English your native tongue?