Brain teaser

[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.