Brain teaser

[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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by waltjp

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.

[Willie Tanner]

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!

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Willie Tanner

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.

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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).

[JugglingReferee]

What does the case book say?

Is there an IR or AR or OR?

[golfnref]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Also note that the player IS out of bounds, not BECOMES out of bounds (which might imply some sort of ongoing status).

A player is "out of bounds when he is touching" out of bounds and I will rule he is still out of bounds until he is "touching inbounds".

[mikesears]

Just one try here. I can't believe I am letting myself get dragged into this thing.

A1 runs a route down the sideline. He accidentally steps out of bounds (not forced out) and then jumps to catch the pass. He then secures the ball and lands inbounds. Is he out of bounds or is this play still live?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Willie Tanner

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.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

So you really believe that the rules makers intented to allow for someone to run beyond the end-line and onto the track , jump in the air (presently not out of bounds, by your interpretation) and bat the ball to a teammate who is standing wholy in the end-zone for a touchdown?

It's either a yes or no answer.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by asdf

So you really believe that the rules makers intented to allow for someone to run beyond the end-line and onto the track , jump in the air (presently not out of bounds, by your interpretation) and bat the ball to a teammate who is standing wholy in the end-zone for a touchdown?

It's either a yes or no answer.

Odd. You quote me saying one thing and asking you a question ... and then you tell me I believe something absurd, ignore the question posted, and then ask me a question I've now answered for you 3 times. The answer is no. Don't ask me again. Now, answer mine!

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by asdf

So you really believe that the rules makers intented to allow for someone to run beyond the end-line and onto the track , jump in the air (presently not out of bounds, by your interpretation) and bat the ball to a teammate who is standing wholy in the end-zone for a touchdown?

It's either a yes or no answer.

I believe their intention was for this to be illegal participation, as that is the last previously published Fed interpretation on the matter. This is consistent with the NCAA that treats this play as illegal touching. In either code, it is a foul.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by asdf

So you really believe that the rules makers intented to allow for someone to run beyond the end-line and onto the track , jump in the air (presently not out of bounds, by your interpretation) and bat the ball to a teammate who is standing wholy in the end-zone for a touchdown?

It's either a yes or no answer.

Probably not. But then again the rulesmakers never intended for that A-11 offense to exist either and they had to fix that after the fact too.