Brain teaser

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

If it meant return to the field, it would say return to the field just like 9-6-1 does. The fact that 9-6-1 and 9-6-2 state it differently is actually important.

I will hang my hat on the rules every time. You keep adding words to the rules to make them mean what you want them to mean.

Important? OK, but you forgot to mention exactly where, your strict adherence to the rule, tells you where the OOB player is prohibited from returning to. At some point, Eastshire, you will hopefully come to accept that we do a much more effective job when understand what a rule actually means, in addition to what it says.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Important? OK, but you forgot to mention exactly where, your strict adherence to the rule, tells you where the OOB player is prohibited from returning to. At some point, Eastshire, you will hopefully come to accept that we do a much more effective job when understand what a rule actually means, in addition to what it says.

Actually, I haven't. He's returning to not being OOB, as we've said quite often.

When what you say a rule means is the opposite of what it says, you're not being effective, you're not enforcing the rule.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Actually, I haven't. He's returning to not being OOB, as we've said quite often.

When what you say a rule means is the opposite of what it says, you're not being effective, you're not enforcing the rule.

If Out of Bounds is being beyond the confines of the playing field (as defined in NF: 1-1-2), where does someone return to, if not within the confines of the field of play? Jibberish works for some people, but not all.

Just a suggestion, but when your best possible explanation of something is more confusing and sounds sillier than your original observation, you might consider just not saying anything.

I have never suggested, "When what you say a rule means is the opposite of what it says", I have simply opined that the interpretation that a player, who has absolutely satisfied the requirements of becoming OOB, somehow loses that designation by simply jumping up into the air, while remaining outside the playing field, is simply inaccurate and makes absolutely no common sense or serves any purpose related to the game of football, and therefore I conclude is incorrect.

Forgive me for repeating myself, but if you can provide ANY rational explanation, or even suggestion, why such a contradictory concept should even be remotely considered, I'll be happy to reevaluate my position.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by ajmc

If Out of Bounds is being beyond the confines of the playing field (as defined in NF: 1-1-2), where does someone return to, if not within the confines of the field of play? Jibberish works for some people, but not all.

I'd hate to break it to you, but not only does 1-1-2 not contain any definitions, it doesn't even mention out of bounds. OOB is actually defined in 2-29 and of course you just don't like what it says. As to where someone is returning to, as I said in just my last post giving further evidence you don't actually read what anyone is saying, is not OOB.

Just a suggestion, but when your best possible explanation of something is more confusing and sounds sillier than your original observation, you might consider just not saying anything.

I have never suggested, "When what you say a rule means is the opposite of what it says", I have simply opined that the interpretation that a player, who has absolutely satisfied the requirements of becoming OOB, somehow loses that designation by simply jumping up into the air, while remaining outside the playing field, is simply inaccurate and makes absolutely no common sense or serves any purpose related to the game of football, and therefore I conclude is incorrect.

Forgive me for repeating myself, but if you can provide ANY rational explanation, or even suggestion, why such a contradictory concept should even be remotely considered, I'll be happy to reevaluate my position.

I agree that including airborne players who last touched OOB as OOB players is rational. That's the choice basketball made. However, it's not the choice that football made. Having OOB players only include those actually touching OOB is also a rational choice, your dislike of it notwithstanding.

You are ignoring the rule because you don't like it, not because it isn't rational.

Anyways, this will be my last post on the matter as it's clear your more interested in what you want the rules to be than what the rules actually are.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I'd hate to break it to you, but not only does 1-1-2 not contain any definitions, it doesn't even mention out of bounds. OOB is actually defined in 2-29 and of course you just don't like what it says. As to where someone is returning to, as I said in just my last post giving further evidence you don't actually read what anyone is saying, is not OOB.

You are ignoring the rule because you don't like it, not because it isn't rational.

Anyways, this will be my last post on the matter as it's clear your more interested in what you want the rules to be than what the rules actually are.

I know what you said in your last post, it just doesn't make any sense to me (and I doubt to you either). NF:1-1-2 is not a definition, it does however identify what the measurements of the playing surface (which some consider to equate to "inbounds") actually is.

I do NOT think NF:2-29-1 is irrational, I think your interpretation of what NF: 2-29-1 means is irrational (and thus far you seem unable to even try and correct that conclusion).

I don't want the rules of this game to be anything more than realistic, rational, logical, understandable and explainable and I believe my interpretation of NF: 2-29-1 satisfies all those requirements. Your interpretation falls short on multiple levels.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I don't want the rules of this game to be anything more than realistic, rational, logical, understandable and explainable and I believe my interpretation of NF: 2-29-1 satisfies all those requirements. Your interpretation falls short on multiple levels.

There's the difference right there. You WANT something from the rules. The rest of us have no such desire to make the rules what we want them to be. Your interp does not satisfy anything at all, as you have to change the words to make the rule mean what you WANT it to mean (is touching becomes has touched) or you have to invent a concept not part of football's rules to fit what you WANT into the rules. Either is simply bad officiating.

Changing the words in a sentence is not "interpreting" - it's changing.
Inventing a concept that doesn't exist at all in the book is not "interpreting" - it's inventing.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

There's the difference right there. You WANT something from the rules. The rest of us have no such desire to make the rules what we want them to be. Your interp does not satisfy anything at all, as you have to change the words to make the rule mean what you WANT it to mean (is touching becomes has touched) or you have to invent a concept not part of football's rules to fit what you WANT into the rules. Either is simply bad officiating.

Changing the words in a sentence is not "interpreting" - it's changing.
Inventing a concept that doesn't exist at all in the book is not "interpreting" - it's inventing.

A word of general advice, Mike, when you speak for yourself alone, you are on a lot firmer ground. I can tell you for absolute sure, you are not competent to tell me what I'm thinking, or have any idea what I want. Based on your analysis, you are also not competent to lecture me about rules or rule concepts.

You do what you think is right, and I'll continue to do what I think is correct and with some luck we'll both survive without too much agita.