Brain teaser

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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 sit here stunned. Absolutely stunned.

I recognize that you're trying to throw me an olive branch here ... and I hate to crush it. But OMFG. No - we're not in agreement, not at all.

Yes. I have. Suggested it's IP. Not suggested, stated. It's Illegal freaking participation. How can you read what I just wrote and think otherwise? Goodness, you even quoted IN YOUR POST, and then BOLDED it - where I say "it is IP".

Kind of renders the rest of your post moot wrt what I'm saying.

Literally Freaking Stunned.

[Eastshire]

I despair to hope that this makes a lick of difference, but once more into the breach.

Please actually read the rules cited this time. Stop assuming you know what they say and actually read them.

Reread 9-6-2. It does not say return to the field. It says returns.

Answer this question: When A88 jumps in the air, is he touching OOB? The answer is no. Since he is not touching OOB he does not meet the definition of being OOB to wit "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."

By definition (although I grant you it's the Fed's definition, not yours) the player is not OOB. If he's not OOB but he was OOB, he has returned.

I will grant you that he has not returned to the field but that is not relevant to 9-6-2.

The ball is therefore not OOB when he touches it as it has not touched an OOB player (2-29-3) because the player is not touching OOB (2-29-1).

By touching the pass, A88 has participated (2-30). Since he intentionally went OOB but is no longer OOB (thus returned), his participation is illegal (9-6-2).

It's really quite simple (and I dare say not that controversial) if you actually read the rules.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Reread 9-6-2. It does not say return to the field. It says returns.

Answer this question: When A88 jumps in the air, is he touching OOB? The answer is no. Since he is not touching OOB he does not meet the definition of being OOB to wit "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."

By definition (although I grant you it's the Fed's definition, not yours) the player is not OOB. If he's not OOB but he was OOB, he has returned.

I will grant you that he has not returned to the field but that is not relevant to 9-6-2.

The ball is therefore not OOB when he touches it as it has not touched an OOB player (2-29-3) because the player is not touching OOB (2-29-1).

By touching the pass, A88 has participated (2-30). Since he intentionally went OOB but is no longer OOB (thus returned), his participation is illegal (9-6-2).

So A88 earns a flag for IP for not touching the ground when he touched the ball? That's going to make for some interesting, and difficult, calls along the sideline.

I don't believe any of you arguing for this position would even try to call this consistently. In the ordinary case where the ball or player holding it just lands out of bounds, you would rule on the spirit of the rule, as ajmc calls for explicitly, and call it a dead ball and no foul. The only reason you'd call it IP would be to save the other team from its being a completed pass in some of the extreme cases discussed here. And that's just hypocrisy.

Yeah, we know how the literal rules read. We know how a partly applicable case was stated in an interpretations book. But I don't believe a bit of it.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I sit here stunned. Absolutely stunned.

I recognize that you're trying to throw me an olive branch here ... and I hate to crush it. But OMFG. No - we're not in agreement, not at all.

Yes. I have. Suggested it's IP. Not suggested, stated. It's Illegal freaking participation. How can you read what I just wrote and think otherwise? Goodness, you even quoted IN YOUR POST, and then BOLDED it - where I say "it is IP".

Sorry Mike, I just assumed you simply made a typo and went with your initial observation, "can I be more clearer than this: "NO ONE THINKS THIS IS LEGAL PARTICIPATION". I presumed after my telling you the rule number, you would have actually looked it up and realized your assessment is simply wrong.

I'll try and explain if for you Mike, in simple terms; there's really nothing wrong, or illegal, about going out of bounds. Anyone can do so whenever they choose without fear of penalty. The problem arises from the conditions under which they "return to the field during the down", the requirements for which are spelled out in NF: 9-6.

My apologies for misunderstanding your previous comment, I assumed you understood how utterly wrong you were and wisely corrected yourself.
Apparently my mistake, for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Sorry Mike, I just assumed you simply made a typo and went with your initial observation, "can I be more clearer than this: "NO ONE THINKS THIS IS LEGAL PARTICIPATION". I presumed after my telling you the rule number, you would have actually looked it up and realized your assessment is simply wrong.

It's hilarious that the guy who refuses to actually read a rule says this.

I'll try and explain if for you Mike, in simple terms; there's really nothing wrong, or illegal, about going out of bounds. Anyone can do so whenever they choose without fear of penalty. The problem arises from the conditions under which they "return to the field during the down", the requirements for which are spelled out in NF: 9-6.

You are quoting 9-6-1 which only applies to A or K who was blocked out of bounds. The full quote is:

"Prior to a change of possession, or when there is no change of possession, no player of A or K shall go out of bounds and return to the field during the down unless blocked out of bounds by an opponent. If a player is blocked out of bounds by an opponent and returns to the field during the down, he shall return at the first opportunity."

The rule that is relevant here is instead 9-6-2 (as I've said at least three times) which says in full:

"During the down, no player shall intentionally go out of bounds and return."

Notice how it doesn't say return to the field.