Brain teaser

[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?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Is English your native tongue?

No. It's troll.

And I don't know why you encourage it.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Is English your native tongue?

Why yes, English is my primary language. When I realize I have absolutely nothing of any value to offer, or am incapable of explaining something reasonably I choose to simply remain silent, rather than try and bark my way along.

You should consider that approach, because repeatedly ducking the question and relying on childish snarky remarks to bolster your position isn't working all that well for you.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by ajmc

because repeatedly ducking the question and relying on childish snarky remarks to bolster your position isn't working all that well for you.

And yet you offer nothing to back your position.