Brain teaser

[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.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

Please don't start telling us what we would do or call, especially when we have actually officiated high school (and in some cases) collegiate football games. Part of being an official is having the guts and integrity to make tough calls that are supported by rule, even if they appear to be unpopular or inequitable. Not being an official and telling us how we WILL do our jobs is rather hypocritical on your own behalf. But I really would not expect you to understand that.

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.

Let's just burn the rule book then, what's the use in even knowing it?

And that's about all I have to say about that. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get my equipment ready for a scrimmage tomorrow.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Please don't start telling us what we would do or call, especially when we have actually officiated high school (and in some cases) collegiate football games. Part of being an official is having the guts and integrity to make tough calls that are supported by rule, even if they appear to be unpopular or inequitable.

I'm saying you've never even thought about flagging for IP on the basis of a player's leaving the ground after touching out of bounds.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I'm saying you've never even thought about flagging for IP on the basis of a player's leaving the ground after touching out of bounds.

Oh I certainly have and I will when it happens. Of course now that I'm working NCAA rules, it will be for illegal touching.

It doesn't happen often that I conclude such a thing in any discussion forum about anything, but any of you who think about this and still say you'd administer such a play that way -- you're lying.

If this statement weren't so patently absurd, I think I may have been offended. But please, continue on with telling me how I would rule on something.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

The right call is frequently interesting and difficult. We still make them anyway. It's not our job to decide the rule should be something different and call that. It's our job to call the rules as they are written. If there's loopholes in them, it's the committee's issue to resolve not ours.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

The right call is frequently interesting and difficult. We still make them anyway. It's not our job to decide the rule should be something different and call that. It's our job to call the rules as they are written. If there's loopholes in them, it's the committee's issue to resolve not ours.

I can't believe that in Fed you're ever going to flag for IP the player who touches the sideline and then is not touching the ground when he touches the ball unless he does something that indicates he jumped so as to relieve himself of being out of bounds -- and probably not even then unless the ball bounces back into play. You've probably called the normal situation a dead ball a hundred times or more without a moment's hesitation.

It doesn't happen often that I conclude such a thing in any discussion forum about anything, but any of you who think about this and still say you'd administer such a play that way -- you're lying.

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I can't believe that in Fed you're ever going to flag for IP the player who touches the sideline and then is not touching the ground when he touches the ball unless he does something that indicates he jumped so as to relieve himself of being out of bounds -- and probably not even then unless the ball bounces back into play. You've probably called the normal situation a dead ball a hundred times or more without a moment's hesitation.

It doesn't happen often that I conclude such a thing in any discussion forum about anything, but any of you who think about this and still say you'd administer such a play that way -- you're lying.

Sorry my friend - and I use that term loosely - I agree with Welpe in that it's not your place and certainly none of your business to decide what I will or will not do while I'm on the football field. Furthermore, I'm personally offended that you would call me a liar when you don't even know me. Agreed, before this play was posted, I would have called the player OOB and blown it dead, but now, after having learned the rule and SERIOUSLY considered all the posts, I will have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM flagging the guy for IP in this situation.(Why do I keep feeling like this is going to happen to me?)
So, unless you have something positive to contribute, keep your offending comments to yourself.

[MD Longhorn]

Robert, you usually supply good commentary and well reasoned logic when you post. We don't always agree, but I always get where you're coming from and you sometimes convince me in the error of my ways.

That said - I'm not sure why this particular topic drew your ire as strongly as it seems to, but I really feel your opinions about whether your fellow officials on here are liars or not were inappropriate.

[Welpe]

Mike, I don't believe that Robert is an official.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Mike, I don't believe that Robert is an official.

I thought, from another board, that he was an NCAA official. Perhaps he merely shares a name.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Robert, you usually supply good commentary and well reasoned logic when you post. We don't always agree, but I always get where you're coming from and you sometimes convince me in the error of my ways.

That said - I'm not sure why this particular topic drew your ire as strongly as it seems to, but I really feel your opinions about whether your fellow officials on here are liars or not were inappropriate.

It's the first time I can recall in any online discussion of anything where I thought the people on the other side (other than the trivial cases wherein people troll for flames) weren't just wrong, but insincere. I just can't believe any of you would mess up your sideline and end line calls by a mechanical application of the rules that would result in IP calls for inconsequential plays.

The basic situation is not rare! When you consider that someone running will have neither foot on the ground much of the time, and when you consider all the times someone runs out of bounds trying to catch a ball near a sideline, there's a good likelihood that it will occur several times a game. I don't believe any of you would routinely throw that flag. Any of you seriously entertaining that idea are kidding yourselves, and the rest of you are just lying if you say you would. You're just writing what you've written here for the sake of argument, to say you'd apply the letter of the law, which has brought out some rather goofy play situations that are interesting and curious.

Frequently discussions here have been contentious, and once in a while someone may suspect that others are arguing just for its own sake, but in this case I'm really convinced that's so.

BTW, I don't officiate except in desperate situations, but I do coach.