Brain teaser

[Eastshire]

Rule 2-29-1

"A player or other person is out of bounds when any part of the person is touching anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside the sideline or end line."

Rule 2-29-3

"A loose ball is out of bounds when it touches anything, including a player or game official that is out of bounds."

A88 has not met any of the requirements of 2-29-1 nor has the ball met the requirements of 2-29-3 at the point of touching. A88 has returned at the point of touching and is illegally participating.

B gets the choice: TD for A or the penalty.

The bottom line here is you are making up you own rule 2-29-1. Everyone else is using the one provided by the Fed.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

A88 has not met any of the requirements of 2-29-1 nor has the ball met the requirements of 2-29-3 at the point of touching. A88 has returned at the point of touching and is illegally participating.

B gets the choice: TD for A or the penalty.

The bottom line here is you are making up you own rule 2-29-1. Everyone else is using the one provided by the Fed.

Let's make sure we're addressing the same question before we start defining the "bottom line". The scenario I've been addressing relates to a player who runs OOB completely on his own. No forcing out of any type. In running OOB he repeatedly touches the ground OOB, satisfying ALL THE NF:2-29-1 criteria for being OOB.

After, and while he remains, outside the field of play he jumps up into the air. The question is does he somehow retain the ability to legally participate, and affect, action simply because he has ceased touching the ground? All of the activity involved happens beyond the playing field boundry lines.

Please save yourself some wasted effort, I know exactly what NF:2-29-1, 2 &3 states and am not disputing the wording, I do not agree with the interpretation of those words that suggests that simply because a player jumps up into the air while OOB, after having completed being OOB by touching the ground OOB, he can continue to influence play.

Try as I may, I am unable to make any sense whatsoever to interpreting this, otherwise simple and straightforward definition, to accomodate this interpretation. I am unable to imagine an explanation of this interpretation that is logical in either a "football" sense or basic common sense. Thus far, NOBODY has come even close to offering a rational explanation for this interpretation serving any possible purpose, other than a gramatical excuse, "because it says so".

Sorry, I don't believe, or accept, that football rules are deliberately crafted to make no sense and serve no purpose, although their are numerous examples where they are worded inartfully. Any rule is only the written presentation of a thought, a thought intended to serve a purpose that is deemed necessary. I can't find the purpose in this interpretation.

So, if you really want to help me get to a different, "bottom line" show me where this "unique" interpretation makes the slightest bit of actual sense, either to the game, or in general. The arguments that this situation fits any existing penalty don't seem to hold water and allowing the results of such a play stand defies credulity, and the basic objective of the game (NF: 1-1-1). So, until I can rationally understand and explain otherwise, I'm comfortable with considering the situation as meeting the requirements, and intentions, of NF: 2-29-1. You go with what you're comfortable understanding and explaining.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Let's make sure we're addressing the same question before we start defining the "bottom line". The scenario I've been addressing relates to a player who runs OOB completely on his own. No forcing out of any type. In running OOB he repeatedly touches the ground OOB, satisfying ALL THE NF:2-29-1 criteria for being OOB.

After, and while he remains, outside the field of play he jumps up into the air. The question is does he somehow retain the ability to legally participate, and affect, action simply because he has ceased touching the ground? All of the activity involved happens beyond the playing field boundry lines.

Please save yourself some wasted effort, I know exactly what NF:2-29-1, 2 &3 states and am not disputing the wording, I do not agree with the interpretation of those words that suggests that simply because a player jumps up into the air while OOB, after having completed being OOB by touching the ground OOB, he can continue to influence play.

Try as I may, I am unable to make any sense whatsoever to interpreting this, otherwise simple and straightforward definition, to accomodate this interpretation. I am unable to imagine an explanation of this interpretation that is logical in either a "football" sense or basic common sense. Thus far, NOBODY has come even close to offering a rational explanation for this interpretation serving any possible purpose, other than a gramatical excuse, "because it says so".

Sorry, I don't believe, or accept, that football rules are deliberately crafted to make no sense and serve no purpose, although their are numerous examples where they are worded inartfully. Any rule is only the written presentation of a thought, a thought intended to serve a purpose that is deemed necessary. I can't find the purpose in this interpretation.

So, if you really want to help me get to a different, "bottom line" show me where this "unique" interpretation makes the slightest bit of actual sense, either to the game, or in general. The arguments that this situation fits any existing penalty don't seem to hold water and allowing the results of such a play stand defies credulity, so until I can rationally understand and explain otherwise, I'm comfortable with considering the situation meeting the requirements of NF: 2-29-1. You go with what you're comfortable understanding and explaining.

Again, no one has said he is legally participating. We have said, ad nauseum, that he is illegally participating.

When the receiver jumps in the air he is no longer "touching anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside the sideline or end line." Therefore, he is no longer OOB. If he is not OOB, then he has returned in violation of 9-6-2: Penalty - Illegal Participation. When he touches the pass, the ball has not touched a player OOB and is not dead.

Again, no one says this is legal. However, the play continues. If B intercepts the ball or recovers a fumble on the play, they would be able to decline the penalty and keep the ball.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Again, no one has said he is legally participating. We have said, ad nauseum, that he is illegally participating.

When the receiver jumps in the air he is no longer "touching anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside the sideline or end line." Therefore, he is no longer OOB. If he is not OOB, then he has returned in violation of 9-6-2: Penalty - Illegal Participation. When he touches the pass, the ball has not touched a player OOB and is not dead.

Again, no one says this is legal. However, the play continues. If B intercepts the ball or recovers a fumble on the play, they would be able to decline the penalty and keep the ball.

It's kind of like trying to nail Jello to the wall, isn't it?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Welpe

It's kind of like trying to nail Jello to the wall, isn't it?

But if I just put one more nail in it,

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

But if I just put one more nail in it,

Trust me, there aren't enough in the hardware store.

[MD Longhorn]

East - kudos for trying.

Here's why I gave up. AJ continues to put up, and argue with, strawman arguments, and disagrees even with himself. I think it's clear, now, that he just wants to argue with SOMEthing.

First he claims this sitch is merely OOB - incomplete. When he's dogpiled by those who read the rule to mean what it says, instead of extending the rule so that "is" means "was" or "has" - he then rails against those of us who want to call the play a touchdown...

Except that none of us are saying that. He's argued repeatedly that A88 cannot suddenly legally participate - when we're saying he cannot suddenly legally participate. He says he would rule OOB-incomplete because he's proven that A88 cannot legally participate ... which makes no sense. Then he even says, "This is clearly illegal participation", when that's what we've tried to say all along! Then he goes straight back to OOB-incomplete. He doesn't even know what he thinks anymore ... he just thinks the opposite of the most recent post, whoever may have sent that.

When that didn't work, he threw out condescending sarcasm, then when called on it claims that I started that.

AJ - can I be more clearer than this: "NO ONE THINKS THIS IS LEGAL PARTICIPATION". It's just not incomplete or a dead ball. it is IP (or IT in NCAA).

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

East - kudos for trying.

Here's why I gave up. AJ continues to put up, and argue with, strawman arguments, and disagrees even with himself. I think it's clear, now, that he just wants to argue with SOMEthing.

First he claims this sitch is merely OOB - incomplete. When he's dogpiled by those who read the rule to mean what it says, instead of extending the rule so that "is" means "was" or "has" - he then rails against those of us who want to call the play a touchdown...

Except that none of us are saying that. He's argued repeatedly that A88 cannot suddenly legally participate - when we're saying he cannot suddenly legally participate. He says he would rule OOB-incomplete because he's proven that A88 cannot legally participate ... which makes no sense. Then he even says, "This is clearly illegal participation", when that's what we've tried to say all along! Then he goes straight back to OOB-incomplete. He doesn't even know what he thinks anymore ... he just thinks the opposite of the most recent post, whoever may have sent that.

When that didn't work, he threw out condescending sarcasm, then when called on it claims that I started that.

AJ - can I be more clearer than this: "NO ONE THINKS THIS IS LEGAL PARTICIPATION". It's just not incomplete or a dead ball. it is IP (or IT in NCAA).

I'd say AJ has the spirit of the rule correct. To me it seems harsh to give a penalty for IP for an act that runs against the spirit of the rule on illegal participation, but silly to consider the ball to remain in play when it leads to such strange consequences. Sometimes you just have to understand that the rules writers made an oversight in the wording and rule on the obvious spirit of the rule rather than the letter.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Sometimes you just have to understand that the rules writers made an oversight in the wording and rule on the obvious spirit of the rule rather than the letter.

Then why have both the Federation and the NCAA have issued interpretations that this is clearly not out of bounds? I have to believe the NFHS meant exactly what they wrote both then and now.

The IP rule in general is harsh in dealing with Team A players that have unintentionally stepped out of bounds. A receiver that is one step out of bounds and returns has committed IP and that is what the Fed wants so calling the OP IP is consistent with other situations. This is why I like the NCAA rule better.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

That's what I'd say about the player of R standing out of bounds who touches a rolling free kick to make it out of bounds, based on a broad reading of "participate" (taking the provision on "illegal participation" implicitly defining "participate" as non-exhaustive) even though he didn't "return". However, I'd have a hard time considering it illegal participation for a player who'd just stepped over the sideline and jumped for the ball. Seems to me the spirit of the rule against illegal participation requires a player deliberately try to take advantage of going out of bounds.

You've confused me. You're saying you would call IP on a player who hasn't returned but won't on one who has?

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I'd say AJ has the spirit of the rule correct. To me it seems harsh to give a penalty for IP for an act that runs against the spirit of the rule on illegal participation, but silly to consider the ball to remain in play when it leads to such strange consequences. Sometimes you just have to understand that the rules writers made an oversight in the wording and rule on the obvious spirit of the rule rather than the letter.

AJ has the spirit of the rules wrong (and right since as crowder has pointed out he goes back and forth on his result). The spirit of the rule is that you are not allowed to participate if you leave the field unless forced off. The spirit of the rule is also that a ball isn't dead until it goes OOB or falls incomplete.

Despite this, AJ wants to rule that a ball that has not gone out of bounds is dead. That's against the spirit of the rules.

As to strange consequences, I don't see them. What's strange about calling a penalty?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Then why have both the Federation and the NCAA have issued interpretations that this is clearly not out of bounds? I have to believe the NFHS meant exactly what they wrote both then and now.

I think they may be a bit embarrassed at an oversight of long standing and are insincerely defending it.

The IP rule in general is harsh in dealing with Team A players that have unintentionally stepped out of bounds. A receiver that is one step out of bounds and returns has committed IP and that is what the Fed wants so calling the OP IP is consistent with other situations. This is why I like the NCAA rule better.

But at least a Fed player of A who is running approximately parallel to the sideline can be alert to the possibility of having stepped out of bounds and returned. This situation is likely to be different: a receiver running at a considerable angle to the sideline while looking back for the ball who doesn't know he has stepped on the sideline. Are you saying you would really flag for IP in the harmless case where such a player caught the ball or batted it in such a way that it became dead anyway? If not, you too must be acknowledging what I wrote, and hypocritically presenting a penalty option only to prevent team A from benefiting in the unlikely, but not out of the realm of possibility, being discussed here and in the previous thread. Which means you know it should be an incomplete pass, and would be doing the next best thing by using selective enforcement to appear to uphold the letter of the rules, instead of ajmc's simply ruling incomplete openly.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I'd say AJ has the spirit of the rule correct. To me it seems harsh to give a penalty for IP for an act that runs against the spirit of the rule on illegal participation, but silly to consider the ball to remain in play when it leads to such strange consequences. Sometimes you just have to understand that the rules writers made an oversight in the wording and rule on the obvious spirit of the rule rather than the letter.

I'm not sure I follow your logic at all. Considering that both FED and NCAA tell you EXACTLY what they want called here via caseplay - I don't think it makes a lot of sense for us, as officials, to consider their answer "silly" or "against the spirit of the rule". Further - it seems very backward to me to have no problem with IP in the first sitch you describe, but not in the OP. Last - can you define what you mean by strange consequences? 15 yards (or 5) for trying to cheat doesn't seem odd to me.

[bisonlj]

I believe that by rule this play is neither IP or incomplete. It's an odd loophole in the rule for a situation that is almost unlikely to ever occur! If you are going to call this IP, you are also going to call the following play an IP:

A80, while in his route, steps on the sideline and leaps for a pass. He catches it while airborn and lands (a) out of bounds or (b) in bounds.

If you are in the incomplete pass camp for the first play, you have to rule incomplete only for both of these plays as well. If you are in the IP camp, you would rule IP for both of these plays as well.

I think most officials would agree (a) is just an incomplete pass and (b) could be correctly ruled IP but some would probably just rule incomplete.

If a coach is going to intentionally run a play that involves a receiver touching out of bounds, leaping, catching and throwing or batting the ball to a teammate SUCCESSFULLY, and having that receiver do anything with it from there is probably not going to be coaching very long. If they pull this off, I think it's still a live ball with no fouls. The case play Welpe used was from a few years ago and we don't know if it was removed to make space or because it's no longer a valid interpretation.

Regardless, this play is probably never going to happen so what's the point getting so emotional about it? Go with your own opinions and move on.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Last - can you define what you mean by strange consequences? 15 yards (or 5) for trying to cheat doesn't seem odd to me.

You know, where the ball hits the baton thrown up by the baton twirler and rebounds into the field. Or where it's 4th down and team A sends a couple receivers well and clearly beyond the end line to jump and bat an overthrown ball back (which their receiver in the end zone had a shot at, but missed) so that team B needs to accept the penalty and repeat the down to avoid giving up a TD. Or where a receiver nicks the sideline with his foot while jumping and catching the ball.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

" he then rails against those of us who want to call the play a touchdown...

Except that none of us are saying that. AJ - can I be more clearer than this: "NO ONE THINKS THIS IS LEGAL PARTICIPATION". It's just not incomplete or a dead ball. it is IP (or IT in NCAA).

Mike, perhaps you're not reading what I'm trying to say. You may never have suggested Illegal Participation was involved in this scenario, but others have, and we are in agreement that Illegal Participation is NOT appropriate in the NFHS world. That is one area we appear to be in agreement on.

I have no interest in NCAA rules. As I understand Illegal Participation, on the NFHS level, I'm looking at NF: 9-6-1 & 2 which clearly state the conditions under which a player comits this foul, which requires not only going OOB, but returning. The mechanic used in our area, to focus on that required sequence, calls for a beanbag to be thrown when an A (or K) player crosses the line and a flag when he crosses back inbounds (See "Comment" Case Book 9.6.1.A)

I don't see how a player who has completed all the requirements of being OOB can violate any provision of NF: 9-6, without "returning inbounds", nor do I understand how a player can magically satisfy the requirement of "returning inbounds" by simply jumping up into the air while remaining outside the playing field boundries.

If I've confused you, Mike, allow me to try and clarify.

Since the action by A88 (in the ridiculous sample play) does NOT qualify for either Illegal Participation or Illegal Touching (under NFHS Illegal Touching is something an ineligible receiver does), the result of the play (redirecting the live ball back across the sideline to an inbounds teammate who advances across the goal line), the result of the play MUST be a TD, because there's no reason for it not to be.

You seem to agree that allowing this score to stand DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, but I don't see how or why you can prevent that without considering the ball dead when touched OOB by your airborne, OOB A88. If you insist the ball remains alive, and admit that no penalty has been committed, NF: 8-2-1 "Possession of a live ball in the opponent's End Zone is always a touchdown." takes over.

This does get to be a confusing string as some insist on twisting the original question to try and support their position. Mike, if you would read what I've said, instead of assuming what you thought I meant to say, it might seem clearer and easier to follow.

My position is relatively simple, due to the absence of any foul being committed by A88, the play has to stand, or for some reason, fail to stand. Interpreting the touching by A88 to have been by an OOB player, even though he is not consistently touching the ground, which seems a reasonable interpretation, provides the appropriate ruling. There's no flag on the ground, because nobody has earned one, and we can move on.