Brain teaser

[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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by 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.

Interesting that they specified 2 steps. As if acknowledging that it would be too harsh to hit someone for IP for just stepping on the sideline while looking back for the ball and then jumping off that foot to play the ball.

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by 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.

That solved the problem for me. Thanks.

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by 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.

Somebody help me with this - is there any reason why this interpretation is not still binding on the situation? I changed my position based solely on the fact that this OFFICIAL interpretation was given in the NFHS casebook, and according to what I've read and others have written on this topic, there has never been anything to reverse this interpretation. That being the case, is this not precedent (proof) of the way the powers-that-be intend for officials to apply the rules to this particular situation? Not trying to stir up trouble, just trying to understand.

[MD Longhorn]

Robert, I hear what you're saying.
AJ - I appreciate the kinder tone, and promise you I've already lasted "long enough".

And I realize the OP stretches realisticness quite a bit. But the idea that you should ignore a rule because you think it seems unrealistic, or because you personally have decided that the rule as written is not what they meant to write, is an extremely slippery slope.

Further, in THIS case, deciding arbitrarily to either replace the word IS with HAS, or inventing the concept of having to reestablish yourself inbounds once you go out of bounds is contrary to caseplay (the one Welpe has posted a few times.)

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)

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BroKen62

Somebody help me with this - is there any reason why this interpretation is not still binding on the situation? I changed my position based solely on the fact that this OFFICIAL interpretation was given in the NFHS casebook, and according to what I've read and others have written on this topic, there has never been anything to reverse this interpretation. That being the case, is this not precedent (proof) of the way the powers-that-be intend for officials to apply the rules to this particular situation? Not trying to stir up trouble, just trying to understand.

No, you do understand.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by BroKen62

Somebody help me with this - is there any reason why this interpretation is not still binding on the situation? I changed my position based solely on the fact that this OFFICIAL interpretation was given in the NFHS casebook, and according to what I've read and others have written on this topic, there has never been anything to reverse this interpretation. That being the case, is this not precedent (proof) of the way the powers-that-be intend for officials to apply the rules to this particular situation? Not trying to stir up trouble, just trying to understand.

Then why is it IP in a & b but not c? It would appear that, without exactly saying so, they meant for the sorts of action in both a & b to be considered a "return", i.e. either batting the ball back into play or physically returning to the playing area. The ruling implies that merely being off the ground is not "returning".

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BroKen62

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.

Not trying to be a smart___ here, but why do you need to define in bounds? All that we need to know is the definition of OOB - as it affects several things. If you're not OOB, not of those items are in play.

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.

I'm happy you understand the rule now. I find it odd that I'm not right because of my logic, but because of a case reference... what logic was used to get to the case reference?

Peace.

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Not trying to be a smart___ here, but why do you need to define in bounds? All that we need to know is the definition of OOB - as it affects several things. If you're not OOB, not of those items are in play.

I guess it's just a symptom of my OCD.

I'm happy you understand the rule now. I find it odd that I'm not right because of my logic, but because of a case reference... what logic was used to get to the case reference?

Now THAT'S a great question. I wish I knew. But, knowing some history behind FED opinions, the powers that be didn't necessarily use logic.

[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.