Brain teaser

[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.

[Welpe]

I think your question and smart comments would be better directed to the rules committee because you really don't care about an answer from the knaves, do you? But then you also must think that both the NFHS and NCAA rulesmakers are a bunch of fools.

Willie, it's time to give ALF a cat and put him to bed please.

[MD Longhorn]

Well THAT was laced with sarcasm. I'm not sure what I did to bring on such bitterness (other than my probably-harsher-than-necessary response to golf).

It seems that you are reading only parts (or perhaps remembering only parts) of what I (and others ... I'm not the only person on here that understands what "Is Touching" means - just most have given up) have written.

Nowhere do I state (in fact, 3 times I state the opposite) that this play is a TD, yet asdf continues to both insist I did and proclaim that I am an idiot because I did... But I didn't. I didn't say it... and I don't think it.

Asdf seems to want to insist this is simply a pass to someone out of bounds. By rule it's not. He also wants to insist that "out of bounds" is some sort of "status" that must be reset by becoming "in bounds". It's not. In bounds is not a defined term. Our rulebooks have flaws ... but lack of definitions is not one of them. If it's not there, it's not a term. There is simply out of bounds (with the word IS in the definition twice), and not out of bounds. Saying that an airborne player over the out of bounds area (or who had previously been out of bounds) is still out of bounds is contradictory to the rule.

Of significance is the exception you mentioned. NO WHERE does it say the player must establish himself (a basketball concept) back in bounds before leaping for the ball. It says he must "immediately attempt to return". As long as he's doing that, he's not illegally participating, and touching the ball is not illegal touching. He DOES NOT have to reach in bounds first (This is important to note... if the ridiculousness spouted by ASDF was true, he would, because his fictitious "status" would still be "out of bounds", which would then cause the play to be dead when the ball touched this "out of bounds" player. And according to caseplay (and thus ... with the "spirit of the rules" you and he want to refer to, because leaning on the actual rulebook is too hard, I guess) - the player MAY jump from out of bounds, catch the ball, and land in bounds for this to be a completed (and legal) pass.

I've explained THAT 3 times as well. I'll make it simple if this isn't clear enough:

ASDF's assertion that a player who was previously out of bounds that jumps is STILL out of bounds is in direct contradiction to the rule that allows this player (if he was forced out) to catch a ball from OOB and land back in the field of play.

Now ... can we dial back the vitriole about 4 notches and actually discuss rules and how they apply?

[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.

[Welpe]

This was last published in the 2003 Fed Casebook and was removed the next year. But the Federation has issued no retraction, change of ruling or otherwise since then. In the interest of saving space, the Federation often removes plays from the casebook but that does not mean they are no longer valid.

9.6.1 Sit D

Wide receiver A1 runs a pass route along the sideline. He takes two steps out of bounds and goes airborne. While in the air he: (a) bats the ball to A2 who catches the ball; or (b) catches the ball and lands inbounds; or (c) catches the ball and lands out of bounds.

Ruling:

In (a) and (b), the ball remains live and the catch is legal. A1 was not out of bounds when he touched the pass, however, he is guilty of illegal participation in both (a) and (b). In (c), the ball is dead and there is no catch or foul. (2-4-1; 2-28; 4-3)

This is in agreement with the NCAA and the Redding Guide's current interpretation.

[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).

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.

Before I read Welpe's post I would have said incomplete pass. I would not have a specific rule for making such a ruling, except to try and apply common sense. BTW, you keep holding others to a standard you cannot achieve, using reasoning you condemn in the posts of those who disagree. For example, you claim that because OOB is clearly defined, then everthing that is not OOB is inbounds. Yet, when I suggest that because you have to touch OOB to be out of bounds, it follows that you have to touch IB to be in bounds, you call that faulty logic. It seems to me that I (and others) used the same logic you did, just came to a different conclusion. If that is not the case, then where is the SPECIFIC Rule that defines inbounds? You cannot define inbounds by the OOB definition without assuming something.

Now, having said that, I surrender! You are correct in your interpretation, not because of your faulty logic, but because of a specific case reference in the book.