Brain teaser

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

I would not attempt to tell you what you're thinking. I base what I said on what you SAY, for this is all I have to go on. If you don't think what you say, don't say it. Here's your quote:

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.

My point was that from this statement, you say you WANT the rules to be something. The rest of us, fortunately, just base our rulings on the ACTUAL rules, and not what we want them to be.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I would not attempt to tell you what you're thinking. I base what I said on what you SAY, for this is all I have to go on. If you don't think what you say, don't say it. Here's your quote: My point was that from this statement, you say you WANT the rules to be something. The rest of us, fortunately, just base our rulings on the ACTUAL rules, and not what we want them to be.

But in this case it's just obvious the rules writers didn't mean what they wrote. Unless they make an extended statement backing it up, I'm taking anything official written that appears to back it up as just noise.

Look at it this way (jumping off from another thread): The home team was behind, and have just given up another score (FG or TD & try), and you ask their captain if they want to kick off or receive, and the answer you hear is, "Kick off, yeah." Would you just go ahead and make the ball ready for play for them to kick off? Or would you call him close and make really clear that you were asking him which team he wants to kick off?

That's how I'm taking this circumstance. Unfortunately none of you have the att'n of the rules committee that you could get from a team captain. So until there's clarif'n that makes really clear they're taking into account both ordinary and extraordinary cases of people formerly touching the ground having contact with the ball over land that's out of bounds, I don't care what a literal reading of the rules says, they meant it to be a dead ball if a player touches out of bounds and then plays it there before coming back to the ground out of bounds. And they didn't mean it to be a foul if someone just tries to play the ball while trying, but failing, to keep feet in bounds.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I would not attempt to tell you what you're thinking. I base what I said on what you SAY, for this is all I have to go on. If you don't think what you say, don't say it. Here's your quote: My point was that from this statement, you say you WANT the rules to be something. The rest of us, fortunately, just base our rulings on the ACTUAL rules, and not what we want them to be.

No Mike, that's not accurate. You seem to base your remarks on what you have decided I meant by what I actually said.

I don't know exactly "who the rest of us" you reference actually is, but I'm pretty confident, based on the officials I've known and worked with for many years, by and large are also hoping the rules thay are charged with enforcing are, "realistic, rational, logical, understandable and explainable".

If you last long enough, doing this thing we do Mike, hopefully you will learn that "knowing" the rules, although extremely important, is only the start of what we do.

Understanding those rules and how they impact and effect the game and applying them to very specific situations that you may be confronted with to keep things in balance, is a never ending learning process that requires, above all, flexibility and sound common sense that enables the rules to be applied as intended, and is largely why we're there.

If you're willing to enforce anything that you honestly don't understand and despite giving it serious thought cannot explain rationally, (notice I'm not including "like" or "agree with", because neither matters much) perhaps you're on the wrong road.