Brain teaser

[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.