Brain teaser

[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!

[asdf]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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!

I figured you correctly, you are the "have it both ways" type to make your argument work for you.

Folks, there is a reason why this isn't addressed by the FED. Julian last year said he had no use for someone who had no concept of how football is to be played. If they had no more common sense than to argue your side, you were not worth the time setting you straight.

I'll take his advice and let you show the world how much you know about the game. You keep calling those holds 48 yards from the point of attack.

However, I do reserve the right to ask you the question however many freaking times I wish.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by asdf

I figured you correctly, you are the "have it both ways" type to make your argument work for you.

Folks, there is a reason why this isn't addressed by the FED. Julian last year said he had no use for someone who had no concept of how football is to be played. If they had no more common sense than to argue your side, you were not worth the time setting you straight.

What exactly am I trying to have both ways? You've asked me the same question 3 times now, and I've answered you. Why do you refuse to answer mine? I'll repost to make it simple:

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?

To the OP, I've said repeatedly this is not a TD - I just keep saying that YOUR reason that it's not a TD is both faulty AND flies in the face of other rules. I believe that ALL of us here have "a concept of how football is played". You don't even know what I'm arguing at this point, however.

[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.

[Willie Tanner]

I'm not so sure about not having to reestablish yourself, but I am cetain the intent of the rule isn't that a player can go oobjump from oob and touch the ball with no repercussions. I know it's not a popular stance but I think AJMC is on the right track here. This sounds like an egregious oversight by the rules and one that we should correct on the field. Sometimes common sense and logic have to prevail. I also ran this scenario by one of our veteran referees Trevor Melmac and he agreed that you can't let this go.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by Willie Tanner

I'm not so sure about not having to reestablish yourself, but I am cetain the intent of the rule isn't that a player can go oobjump from oob and touch the ball with no repercussions. I know it's not a popular stance but I think AJMC is on the right track here. This sounds like an egregious oversight by the rules and one that we should correct on the field. Sometimes common sense and logic have to prevail. I also ran this scenario by one of our veteran referees Trevor Melmac and he agreed that you can't let this go.

Really? What happens if the bat is intercepted by B and run back for a TD? You taking that away from them with no clear rule reason to do so?

[Jimmie24]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Really? What happens if the bat is intercepted by B and run back for a TD? You taking that away from them with no clear rule reason to do so?

Bat? Is it a vampire bat? Edward would be so fast and strong that you would never see him step out of bounds!

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by Jimmie24

Bat? Is it a vampire bat? Edward would be so fast and strong that you would never see him step out of bounds!

It's truly a sad day when that juvenile Twilight crap invades an officiating board.

[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.