Brain teaser

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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).

One more thing and I'll quit - it is my contention that you can have illegal participation while out of bounds. Example - A88 runs OOB, realizes what has happened, and stops. B22 intercepts, starts up the sideline, A88 reaches out, while both feet are still touching OOB, grabs him by the jersey and tackles him. Illegal participation, right? So, being guilty of IP doesn't necessarily IMPLY that any player is not OOB.

[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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

Appreciate your input, Eastshire, but I can't agree with your assessment. NF:7-5-6-d advises, "A player who is eligible at the start of the down remains eligible throughout the down.", so eligibility is never "lost".

"Illegal Touching" (NF: 7-5-13" applies to, "An Ineligible A player has illegally touched a forward pass if he bats, muffs or catches a legal forward pass, unless the pass has first been touched by B", so any player (eligible or ineligible) who touches a pass OOB has not violated any rule and deserves no penalty. The touching simply kills the play.

If that A player (eligible or ineligible) is OOB (unforced) and comes back onto the field and participates (by touching, batting, catching or other wise participating in the play) they then commit the foul of Illegal Participation (NF: 9-6).

NF: 1-1-2 clearly defines, "The game football is played with an inflated ball by two teams on a retangular field 360 by 160 feet.", and a number of rules, including those mentioned above, deal with separating that playing surface from that which is considered OOB.

For more than 100 years there didn't seem to be much confusion about the separation of Inbounds and OOB, until this "unusual" interpretation briefly surfaced suggesting that a player clearly OOB could eliminate his inability to legally participate by simply jumping up into the air, while OOB.

I'm afraid I can't accept your advice, "Throw your flag and let play continue", because unless and until that OOB player comes back onto the playing surface and participates in the play, he has not done anything wrong.

My judgment, based on my understanding of the intent of this basic football concept (separating inbounds from OOB) is that considering that touching by an OOB player, whether touching the ground or jumping back into the air, produces the same result, of killing the ball.

As I've repeated stated, my judgment dictates ONLY my behavior, you need to determine what YOU believe correct and and follow your judgment.

[MD Longhorn]

Know what? I'm really sick of the completely unnecessary but constantly dripping sarcasm from your direction.

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

It's not. It's not consistent, or sensible. Do you read? Or do you just look for nuggets to jump on?

I NEVER said the play was legal, and never said it was a TD. I say that the OP is ILLEGAL PARTICIPATION. Which is what you allude to above. The play, however, is not dead. Your initial contention was to rule this an incomplete pass out of bounds. Not only have you been told you're wrong about 25 times, you've actually finally gotten yourself to the right answer in the course of telling me I'm wrong. Kind of funny, really. Your answer - incomplete pass - is wrong. In both codes.

If the reply is laced with sarcasm and condescention, I, like Welpe, am done.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Know what? I'm really sick of the completely unnecessary but constantly dripping sarcasm from your direction.

If the reply is laced with sarcasm and condescention, I, like Welpe, am done.

2 bits of advice: (1) People in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks. (2) If you do decide to throw rocks, don't anticipate any sympathy from whining that rocks are being thrown back.

Mr. Welpe, Your inability to grab the "pig" may not be because he's greased, rather it may be much more the fault that you are trying to grab him while wearing boxing gloves (i.e. a really dumb argument).

[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?

[Jimmie24]

Originally Posted by 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?

9-6-2, 9-6-1 for accidental; Fundamental I-6.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by jimmie24

9-6-2, 9-6-1 for accidental; fundamental i-6.

i-6?

[Willie Tanner]

I wonder if this guy Walt actually officiates or maybe he just shows up at football fields and criticizes officials who actually understand the complexities of the spirit of the rule and how a referee's personal interpretations can actually be better than the rulebook.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Willie Tanner

I wonder if this guy Walt actually officiates or maybe he just shows up at football fields and criticizes officials who actually understand the complexities of the spirit of the rule and how a referee's personal interpretations can actually be better than the rulebook.

Wow. I really hope you are in fact a troll. I knew I should have left well enough alone. Please carry on carrying on.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by 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?

This is one of the case plays. He is not out of bounds. But he is guilty of IP or IT (depending on code). Play on, but there's a flag on the play.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

This is one of the case plays. He is not out of bounds. But he is guilty of IP or IT (depending on code). Play on, but there's a flag on the play.

Which case play might this be?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by asdf

Which case play might this be?

Do you have a moment to respond to the other one?

AR 7-3-4-V

Eligible receiver A44 is running a pass pattern near the sideline. As
a legal forward pass comes toward him, he accidentally steps on
the sideline, leaps, muffs the pass into the air, returns to the ground
inbounds, grabs the ball and lands on his knees inbounds with the
ball firmly in his possession.

RULING: Illegal touching. Penalty— loss of down at the previous spot.