Brain teaser

[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.