The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Sat Aug 07, 2010, 09:46am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltjp View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Sat Aug 07, 2010, 03:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Randolph, NJ
Posts: 1,936
Send a message via Yahoo to waltjp
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welpe View Post
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.
__________________
I got a fever! And the only prescription.. is more cowbell!
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Sat Aug 07, 2010, 03:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Randolph, NJ
Posts: 1,936
Send a message via Yahoo to waltjp
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc View Post
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.
__________________
I got a fever! And the only prescription.. is more cowbell!
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Sat Aug 07, 2010, 03:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
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.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Sat Aug 07, 2010, 03:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Randolph, NJ
Posts: 1,936
Send a message via Yahoo to waltjp
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc View Post
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?
__________________
I got a fever! And the only prescription.. is more cowbell!
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Sat Aug 07, 2010, 06:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltjp View Post
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.

Last edited by ajmc; Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 06:23pm.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Sat Aug 07, 2010, 11:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Randolph, NJ
Posts: 1,936
Send a message via Yahoo to waltjp
Is English your native tongue?
__________________
I got a fever! And the only prescription.. is more cowbell!
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Sun Aug 08, 2010, 09:11am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltjp View Post
Is English your native tongue?
No. It's troll.

And I don't know why you encourage it.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Sun Aug 08, 2010, 10:07am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltjp View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Sun Aug 08, 2010, 02:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Randolph, NJ
Posts: 1,936
Send a message via Yahoo to waltjp
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc View Post
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.
__________________
I got a fever! And the only prescription.. is more cowbell!
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Sun Aug 08, 2010, 07:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltjp View Post
And yet you offer nothing to back your position.
C'mon Walt be serious, I've done everything but draw you a GD picture. If you don't understand my position and reasoning, it is ONLY because you haven't been paying attention.

I understand You don't agree with my reasoning and have said repeatedly that is ENTIRELY your decision to make. I don't agree with your decision but I fully understand that has no bearing whatsoever on you, or how you decide to deal with this issue.

If you've got something to add to your previous conclusion of, "because (you think) it says so", let's hear it. I'll be happy to consider it. If not, I'm afraid the best we can do is agree to disagree, and move on.
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Mon Aug 09, 2010, 02:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4
I'm a newer official and can't get into some of the in depth rules arguments with you guys but I don't know why yall are giving ajmc such a hard time. I agree with him. Doesn't the rule book make it clear that once you are out of bounds you remain out of bounds until you reestablish yourself in bounds? Besides he seems to be passionate about it, that should count for something!
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Mon Aug 09, 2010, 02:39pm
Archaic Power Monger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willie Tanner View Post
Doesn't the rule book make it clear that once you are out of bounds you remain out of bounds until you reestablish yourself in bounds?
Yes it does...in the basketball rule book. You will not find this anywhere in the football rules because it is a concept that does not exist in the NFHS, NCAA or NFL football rules. Read 2-29-1 and you will see that the rule plainly states that a player is out of bounds when he "is touching" out of bounds. Notice the use of the present tense.

Quote:
Besides he seems to be passionate about it, that should count for something!
It is entirely possible to be passionate and wrong at the same time.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Mon Aug 09, 2010, 02:40pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willie Tanner View Post
I'm a newer official and can't get into some of the in depth rules arguments with you guys but I don't know why yall are giving ajmc such a hard time. I agree with him. Doesn't the rule book make it clear that once you are out of bounds you remain out of bounds until you reestablish yourself in bounds? Besides he seems to be passionate about it, that should count for something!
No. Please post any rule that says anything at all about "re-establishing yourself". this is not basketball.

AJMC... A88 is forced out of bounds, and has touched out of bounds on the ground. From the sideline, he leaps in the air. The ball hits his hands... At this moment - is the play over? By definition, the play is over when the ball is out of bounds, and it has just contacted something that by your definition is out of bounds.

There are 3 possible continuations of this play. They have different results. The reason they have different results is that this airbound player is NOT out of bounds. Out of bounds is a present tense situation. It is not a status that gets flipped back and forth. There is no such thing as "in bounds". Something is simply either OUT OF BOUNDS... or it isn't. No one is claiming he is suddenly in bounds - that's you putting words in our mouths. We are, however, saying that by rule, he is NOT currently out of bounds when in the air.

By your definition, this play is over. However, consider the first 2 of these 3situations:
A) he catches this ball, and lands out of bounds.
B) he catches this ball, and lands in bounds.
Sitch A - WHEN HE LANDS, the pass is incomplete. (Note that it was not yet incomplete until he landed ... meaning that the player was NOT out of bounds when it hit him).
Sitch B - WHEN HE LANDS, the pass is COMPLETE - and the play is not yet over. But wait - by your opinion, this player was out of bounds at this moment - and can't catch the ball, despite rulings in the book otherwise.

So ... surely you recognize that this airborne player is not out of bounds. He has not, in basketballese, "re-established" himself in bounds. He is no longer out of bounds solely because of what.... because he is NOT TOUCHING (AT THAT MOMENT) anything that is out of bounds.

Now, Sitch C - the ball deflects off the player and into someone else's hands. Play on? Or no? The right answer is Play on. Not sure what your answer is, nor how you justify it based on your mistaken belief that the player is still out of bounds when he jumps, but I'm interested in hearing it.

Don't just dismiss the situation because THIS guy was forced out and the other was not. It's the same rules wrt out of bounds or not out of bounds - and the same regarding a ball contacting him.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Mon Aug 09, 2010, 02:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welpe View Post
Read 2-29-1 and you will see that the rule plainly states that a player is out of bounds when he "is touching" out of bounds. Notice the use of the present tense.
Also note that the player IS out of bounds, not BECOMES out of bounds (which might imply some sort of ongoing status).
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
just a brain teaser cmathews Football 6 Tue Sep 16, 2008 05:53am
brain teaser Andy Softball 14 Sun Oct 21, 2007 07:26pm
Slightly OT: Brain Teaser rotationslim Basketball 9 Mon Apr 24, 2006 06:59am
Off season brain teaser FredFan7 Football 11 Thu Mar 09, 2006 06:35pm
Brain teaser. Mike Simonds Football 4 Tue Jul 22, 2003 01:34pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:02am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1