Brain teaser

[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".

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by golfnref

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".

Ah. Cool. Stay the H off my field then. I'll find a new HL - no worries.

Luckily, we're issued a rulebook that tells us otherwise.

I'll go back to the other one... How do you rule? A88 forced out of bounds and on his way back in. Pass in his direction, he leaps, and the ball hits his hands.

Is the play over?

[golfnref]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Ah. Cool. Stay the H off my field then. I'll find a new HL - no worries.

Luckily, we're issued a rulebook that tells us otherwise.

I'll go back to the other one... How do you rule? A88 forced out of bounds and on his way back in. Pass in his direction, he leaps, and the ball hits his hands.

Is the play over?

I will ignore your first statement as I do not intend to get in a pi**ing contest with you.

There is a literal interpretation of the rulebook and there is the spirit of the rules. There is the literal application of rules and there is the common sense application of the rules. The spirit of the rules and the common sense approach has served me well in 53 years of officiating. I am comfortable with my approach.

In your example , has A88 returned "to the field" as required by Rule 9-6-1? I would rule he has not, hence he is guilty of illegal participation.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by golfnref

In your example , has A88 returned "to the field" as required by Rule 9-6-1? I would rule he has not, hence he is guilty of illegal participation.

Thus the proof that your interp is not what FED or NCAA wants - this player is NOT illegal, and may even catch this pass so long as he lands with 1 foot first in bounds. There are caseplays for this in both books.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Thus the proof that your interp is not what FED or NCAA wants - this player is NOT illegal, and may even catch this pass so long as he lands with 1 foot first in bounds. There are caseplays for this in both books.

Mike, since you and Welpe are apparently such scholars of the English language, perhaps you can educate those of us struggling to keep pace. I keep asking for advice that couild help me understand some logical rational helping me to grasp why the rules would provide for a player who has absolutely and totally complied with the requirements of being OOB, to be given the opportunity to reverse that condition while remaining OOB and allowing him to interact with play from beyond the confines of the playing field.

Previous tense and your gramatical expertise aside, can you tell me ANY circumstance that would make this type of interaction fit with the basic concept of the game, as relates to being OOB?

There are exceptions to people being forced OOB, which allow them to return inbounds and participate, although there doesn't seem to be any exception to their being allowed to participate while remaining OOB. Offensive players (A or K) are NOT ALLOWED to exit the field and return (unless forced) and their otherwise returning is Illegal Participation.

It seems to some of us with less insight than you, that the rules try to clearly separate being OOB from being within the Field of Play, exceptions noted, so the simply question seems, " why would such an abstract interpretation that allows a player, who has clearly fullfilled the requirements of being OOB, be given this impractical and, dare I say silly, notion of regaining the ability to participate in the game while remaining beyond the field of play.

Surely, your special insight, can detail a reasonable explanation. If not, perhaps your headlights don't shine as far and as bright as you assumed they did.

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by golfnref

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".

After reading ALL the posts, this one sounds most logical to me. If a player is defined as being OOB when touching OOB, the reverse most likely is true - he is determined to be INBOUNDS when he is touching inbounds.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BroKen62

After reading ALL the posts, this one sounds most logical to me. If a player is defined as being OOB when touching OOB, the reverse most likely is true - he is determined to be INBOUNDS when he is touching inbounds.

You know, my biggest fear, and the reason I didn't just start ignoring the idiots, was that an otherwise intelligent official might read their drivel and BELIEVE it. Please don't.

Just read the book - the rulebook makes complete sense on it's own. It says a player is out of bounds (not BECOMES and out of bounds player, or anything denoting some continuing effect ... IS ) when he IS TOUCHING (not was touching or had touched in the past ... IS ) something out of bounds. there is no "inbounds". Just out of bounds and NOT out of bounds. Touching something outside the field of play or NOT touching something outside the field of play.

If the reverse was true, they would have said so. All chickens are birds does not mean all birds are chickens.

And consider the case play I keep bringing up that flies in the face of their (and now your) interpretation. A88 forced out of bounds. On his way back to the field, he leaps from OOB, catches the pass, and lands in bounds. THIS IS A CATCH. If what you said above is true, then this player, having not "reestablished himself" a la basketball in bounds is still out of bounds - so the ball would be when it touched him. The case play and AR proves this NOT to be true.

[BroKen62]

[QUOTE=mbcrowder;688381]You know, my biggest fear, and the reason I didn't just start ignoring the idiots, was that an otherwise intelligent official might read their drivel and BELIEVE it. Please don't.

Just read the book - the rulebook makes complete sense on it's own. It says a player is out of bounds (not BECOMES and out of bounds player, or anything denoting some continuing effect ... IS ) when he IS TOUCHING (not was touching or had touched in the past ... IS ) something out of bounds. there is no "inbounds". Just out of bounds and NOT out of bounds. Touching something outside the field of play or NOT touching something outside the field of play.

I agree wholeheartedly with the definition of OOB. I just don't think you can make the leap (NO PUN INTENDED) that because inbounds is not specifically defined that it means everything other than OOB.

If the reverse was true, they would have said so. All chickens are birds does not mean all birds are chickens. .

Thanks, I can use that logic in my argument. See above.

And consider the case play I keep bringing up that flies in the face of their (and now your) interpretation. A88 forced out of bounds. On his way back to the field, he leaps from OOB, catches the pass, and lands in bounds. THIS IS A CATCH. If what you said above is true, then this player, having not "reestablished himself" a la basketball in bounds is still out of bounds - so the ball would be when it touched him. The case play and AR proves this NOT to be true.

I'm just a lowly FED guy, don't know anything about NCAA, but I can't find the FED case you keep referring to - please help. Thanks.

I'm not saying your position doesn't have merit - it has certainly caused me to think, but I should have been from Missouri. You gotta show me.

[MD Longhorn]

I'm not a FED guy... but I believe Welpe has referred a few times to the OP being in the Redding guide as IP (which at the very least IMPLIES that the airborne player is not out of bounds, but rather participating).

Regarding in bounds - you don't have to worry about defining in bounds - none of the rules in question refer to it. They tell you what out of bounds is, and they tell you what happens when the ball touches something out of bounds. Whether you choose to call everything else in bounds or NOT out of bounds is really immaterial - it doesn't matter at all - none of these rules talks about in bounds.

Let me ask it to you this way ... since you're a show me guy.

A88 is forced out of bounds. While returning, leaps from OOB, catches the ball, lands in the field of play on both feet. Your ruling? And your rule for making such a ruling. By What Rule do you definitively prove your ruling one way or the other.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

You know, my biggest fear, and the reason I didn't just start ignoring the idiots, was that an otherwise intelligent official might read their drivel and BELIEVE it. Please don't.

And consider the case play I keep bringing up that flies in the face of their (and now your) interpretation. A88 forced out of bounds. On his way back to the field, he leaps from OOB, catches the pass, and lands in bounds. THIS IS A CATCH. If what you said above is true, then this player, having not "reestablished himself" a la basketball in bounds is still out of bounds - so the ball would be when it touched him. The case play and AR proves this NOT to be true.

Perhaps someday, Mr. Crowder, I may be as omnipotent and all knowing as you (seem to think you are), but until then I'll just have to be satisfied being considered "otherwise intelligent" and muddking along as best I can to understand, rather than just read, these rules. Perhaps you might share some of your brilliance, with a less fortunate, and clarify a minor point about, "the case play I keep bringing up (you apparently believe) flies in the face of their interpretation".

I seem to recollect that the rules, rather clearly, indicate that the act of a player being forced OOB by an opponent, is ignored when that player returns in bounds at the first possible opportunity. I'm well aware my grasp of English may not be as acute as yours, but I was under the impression that "ignoring" something happened in this context equates, essentially, to that action not happening, at least to the point of affecting anything.

So, in your repetitive example, the forced OOB player's touching OOB did not render him OOB because his touching OOB was ignored due to his being forced out by an opponent, so as regards the rest of this example, he has NOT been considered OOB, which I believe is the essence of this particular rule.

You also suggest, somewhere in your kind instructions to us "otherwise intelligent" idiots, that a player forced OOB, who elects to stay OOB and return at his convenience somewhere else, would be guilty of Illegal Participation for returning inbounds and touching/catching a pass. A ruling I wholeheartedly agree with.

Here comes that logic block again, If we agree that OOB player (other than forced) cannot come back within the confines of the field and legally participate, why would a player who doesn't even bother to try and get back "inbounds" be allowed to participate by jumping up in the air, while still OOB, and redirect an errant pass to a teammate who had never gone OOB? That doesn't seem at all consistent, or sensible, at least to me.

Someone of your apparant (to you) superior knowledge and understanding should be able to simply explain the logic of that conclusion and help me find some semblance of logic in a one time (and never repeated) 2003 Case Book example, that may very likely have simply been a mistake, that people felt so obviously illogical, didn't merit formally correcting.

I must admit, and acknowledge that for someome who identifies himself as, "I'm not a FED guy... " it's really generous of you to share your knowledge and overall wonderfulness so freely.

[Welpe]

The case book play was published multiple years but please go on believing what you want.

Also feel free to have the last word because I know you will take it, I'm done wrestling with the greased pig.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Perhaps someday, Mr. Crowder, I may be as omnipotent and all knowing as you (seem to think you are), but until then I'll just have to be satisfied being considered "otherwise intelligent" and muddking along as best I can to understand, rather than just read, these rules. Perhaps you might share some of your brilliance, with a less fortunate, and clarify a minor point about, "the case play I keep bringing up (you apparently believe) flies in the face of their interpretation".

I seem to recollect that the rules, rather clearly, indicate that the act of a player being forced OOB by an opponent, is ignored when that player returns in bounds at the first possible opportunity. I'm well aware my grasp of English may not be as acute as yours, but I was under the impression that "ignoring" something happened in this context equates, essentially, to that action not happening, at least to the point of affecting anything.

So, in your repetitive example, the forced OOB player's touching OOB did not render him OOB because his touching OOB was ignored due to his being forced out by an opponent, so as regards the rest of this example, he has NOT been considered OOB, which I believe is the essence of this particular rule.

You also suggest, somewhere in your kind instructions to us "otherwise intelligent" idiots, that a player forced OOB, who elects to stay OOB and return at his convenience somewhere else, would be guilty of Illegal Participation for returning inbounds and touching/catching a pass. A ruling I wholeheartedly agree with.

Here comes that logic block again, If we agree that OOB player (other than forced) cannot come back within the confines of the field and legally participate, why would a player who doesn't even bother to try and get back "inbounds" be allowed to participate by jumping up in the air, while still OOB, and redirect an errant pass to a teammate who had never gone OOB? That doesn't seem at all consistent, or sensible, at least to me.

Someone of your apparant (to you) superior knowledge and understanding should be able to simply explain the logic of that conclusion and help me find some semblance of logic in a one time (and never repeated) 2003 Case Book example, that may very likely have simply been a mistake, that people felt so obviously illogical, didn't merit formally correcting.

I must admit, and acknowledge that for someome who identifies himself as, "I'm not a FED guy... " it's really generous of you to share your knowledge and overall wonderfulness so freely.

A receiver goes OOB without being forced or remains OOB after being forced out. He has lost his eligibility to touch a forward pass. He then leaves OOB and touches a pass which bounds off of him to another receive who catches it and advances the ball to the end zone for an apparent TD.

The original receiver's touch is a foul, but it does not kill the play because the receiver is no longer OOB.

It doesn't matter if the receiver goes back to the hash marks or merely jumps in the air over OOB, if he's not touching OOB, he's not OOB. Throw your flag and let play continue.