Brain teaser

[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.