Brain teaser
 

QB1 rolls to the right. WR88, having gone out of bounds, remains about 5 yards out of bounds, about 5 yards downfield. QB1, avoiding a sack while outside the tackle box, throws the ball away. WR88 jumps in the air (both feet), "catches" the ball, and flings it downfield back in-bounds before touching the ground. WR80 catches the ball in the end-zone, in bounds.

What do you have? Either rule set.

The play is blown dead when WR touches the pass when he jumps from OOB. The subsequent possession (not a "catch") and other subsequent acts are inconsequential.

My (NFHS) take: Incomplete pass.

I don't have both books - just NCAA ... but please use the rules you're supposed to use - and quote the rule if you're going to refer to it. Didn't see an answer to the question from you yet though! :)

Oh lord no not this play again!!!

Cue the violent shakes and cold sweats..."is touching is touching is touching!"

http://forum.officiating.com/footbal...icipation.html

OK seriously, for NCAA I have illegal touching by A88. Loss of down at the previous spot.

7-3-4

Eligibility Lost by Going Out of Bounds

ARTICLE 4. No eligible offensive receiver who goes out of bounds during a
down shall touch a legal forward pass in the field of play or end zones or while
airborne until it has been touched by an opponent or official (A.R. 7-3-4-I-III).

[Exception: This does not apply to an eligible offensive player who attempts
to return inbounds immediately after going out of bounds due to contact by an opponent (A.R. 7-3-4-IV)].

PENALTY—Loss of down at the previous spot [S16 and S9].


AR 7-3-4-V

Eligible receiver A44 is running a pass pattern near the sideline. As
a legal forward pass comes toward him, he accidentally steps on
the sideline, leaps, muffs the pass into the air, returns to the ground
inbounds, grabs the ball and lands on his knees inbounds with the
ball firmly in his possession.

RULING: Illegal touching. Penalty— loss of down at the previous spot.

A44 lost his eligibility by stepping out of bounds and did not regain his eligibility before touching the ball the second time.


AND....just to prove that an airborne receiver that was out of bounds is no longer out of bounds, I offer the following AR:

AR 7-3-6-VII

A86 is legally blocked out of bounds by B18 at Team B’s two-yard
line. A86, while attempting an immediate return to the field of play,
leaps from out of bounds and is airborne as he receives A16’s legal
forward pass. He lands in Team B’s end zone completing the catch.

RULING: Touchdown (Rules 4-1-3-c, 4-2-3-a, 7-3-4 Exception and
8-2-1-b).

Somethings are what they are. NF:2-29-1" 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."

In the example, (it is my interpretation & belief) that when A88 first touched the ground out of bounds, he fulfilled the requirement of being out of bounds. What he does thereafter doesn't much matter. So when he jumps up into the air (5 yards out of bounds), all he is is an out of bounds player jumping up into the air, as opposed to an out of bounds player standing still, but still an out of bounds player.

NF: 2-29-3, "A loose ball is out of bounds when it touches anything, including a player or game official who is out of bounds."

As a note for NFHS, I believe the Redding Guide has this as illegal participation.

For NCAA the result of the play is a TD. The first pass was not completed until it was caught by A80. There wasn't a second forward pass because the first pass was not yet completed. With all that said, there is a foul for illegal touching since A88 lost his eligibility when he volunarily went out of bounds and touched the ball prior to it touching a Team B player on an official. The penalty, as already stated by Welpe, is a loss of down at the previous spot. The clock will start on the snap.

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

Illegal participation!

As long as we're clear that this is your "interpretation & belief," and yours alone, we can ignore it. The rest of us will rely on authoritative sources and accepted interpretations published by FED and other sources to back our opinions.

I thought that was removed? I haven't gotten my 2010 guide yet.

Yep, they are what they are. This player is not touching anything, therefore he is not OOB

Consequently, your "interpretation & belief" is not supported by NFHS rule. It is just something fabricated to satisfy a desire.

Proof positive again that the ball is not OOB as it is NOT touching a player or game official who is OOB.

After reading several of the points laid out in last year's post on this topic I have to say that there is definitely a loophole the size of Mark Mangino in rule 2-29 and the Federation would be doing all a favor to clarify the wording. There are technicalities all through the rulebook and most make sense but this one seems to fly in the face of logic.

Why would it be expressly prohibited for the player to participate on the field of play but be acceptable by rule for him to participate while suspended in the air outside the field of play? It just seems to defy the spirit of the rule that an out-of-bounds player can just jump in the air and legally participate.

That being said the text of the rule is pretty clear. Touching is touching.

If it's me, you can bet that the receiver's foot sure looked like it was still on the ground or touching that nonplayer next to him or the chain equipment.

In most cases I know how I would rule, this is an exception. But I do know that I'm certainly not going to ridicule someone for having a different opinion. Jus' sayin...

Pandora's Box...

Now, I get the rule, I get the play, I get the ruling, and on a test I'd call it that way, but just for fun, here is why I don't like it...

So...what if substitute A88 standing in his team box jumps up and does the same thing...technically he's not out of bounds so I guess his touching doesn't cause the ball to become dead even though everyone in the entire county knows the play is over, but you might just have an IW for common sense. I guess you might say he "otherwise participated in the play" and thus is guilty of IP.

I'll just call incomplete pass.

What if A88 had been previously ejected, or there's another player wearing #88 currently in the game, or A88 isn't wearing legal equipment...

BREAKING NEWS: A new play from the rulebook loophole crew: QB A1 rolls right, throws the pass to cheerleader #7 who is in the air after a baskettoss on the track, who while airborne and NOT out of bounds, catches and tosses the ball to A2 who runs for a touchdown.

That I'm not sure about. It would be consistent with the NCAA in treating the act as illegal.

Yes, but it wouldn't be consistent with their own rule book. Didn't realize this play was a rehash... we appear to have gotten to the right answers already - NCAA - illegal touching, FED - IP.

Consistent by interpretation. That was the published Fed interp a few years ago (and what the Redding interp is based upon), it has been since removed from the casebook but a change has never been published.

IP or not, it is clearly not incomplete. :)

As I've tried to suggest many times, waltjp, I respect your right to form your opinion as you see fit, although I'm not always very impressed with the way you choose to express your conclusions. The important thing is really whether anyone is comfortable with the opinion they've formed, and I am absolutely comfortable with my interpretation and the logic I've used to reach it.

You get to choose whatever "authoritative sources" you like to support your conclusion, and if you have access to any "accepted interpretations published by FED", I'd appreciate your sharing them.

"Jaybird" do yourself a favor, understand and accept the reality that you haven't quite earned the right to use words like "therefore", "Proof positive" or "just something fabricated to satisfy a desire" to add any substantial verification to what amounts to what are just your "opinions".

I have an idea, let's just cut and paste our posts from the previous thread. It'll save us a lot of time.

I really can't stand it when someone reads the rules, invents some opinion that is contrary to those rules, and then justifies it by calling it interpretation.

There is the rule. It tells you quite clearly whether a person is defined as Out Of Bounds.

At the moment he touched, you're right, he's out of bounds. But you've taken this to some bizarre extreme to think that a player once out of bounds is always out of bounds. Completely false, and not consistent with other rules in the book. One example - a player forced out, trying to come back in who leaps, catches, and lands in - is IN... but by "your interpretation" or logic, this player is OUT because he was out when he went out and what he does thereafter doesn't much matter.

Luckily, we have rules to tell us whether this airborne player is out. He's not - because he does not fulfill the definition of Out Of Bounds.

Excuse me Mike, but nobody is inventing a damn thing except those who have recently manufactured this absolutely silly interpretation that a player who has clearly established himself as being OOB can somehow, miraculously retain his status of being Inbounds by simply jmping up into the air while remaining out side the boundry lines. Thus far NOBODY has been able to rationally explain the common sense of that bizarre interpretation. If you suggest this is "consistent with other rules in the book" you are reading something other than any NFHS rule Book ever written

As for your example of a player being FORCED OOB, that is a completely different matter. If you would like an example of how downright stupid your idea is try this; A88 runs OOB and continues behind the team area where he jumps up into the air and, while ariborne, redirects a pass thrown over the team area, to A89 who has never left the field of play, but has wandered 30 yards downfield and catches the redirected pass and advances for a TD.

You're going to allow the score? If so that's on you, I'm going to kill the play as an incomplete pass the instant A88 touches the ball behind his team area, and move on to the next down. Good luck with your score.

I'm really not sure what got you so belligerent. I'm not "recently inventing" anything. The book quite clearly states what makes a player out of bounds. I will restate what I said earlier since you seem to have intentionally misunderstood. Your concept / interpretation / whatever that a player that was previously out of bounds but currently in the air is still out of bounds is NOT consistent with the case of a player forced OOB. Such a player is not out of bounds, although he's not yet IN bounds either. You seem to assume that not out of bounds somehow means IN bounds. Obviously, you can be neither. Any airborne player ANYWHERE is neither in nor out of bounds at that moment. This IS consistent with the forced OOB player returning and landing in.


Yeah, that's stupid alright. Your point? The question was ... by what RULE (not made up rule... real rule) would you rule this not to be a score.

Try really hard not to put words in people's mouths. Did I EVER state that I would allow this score? No. Not even close, and no, I wouldn't. However, just calling it an incomplete pass is quite simply incorrect. Should the offense try something like this and instead have the defense catch the ball - you dang well better let defense keep the ball. Me saying your "interpretation" is not only wrong, but complete fabrication does NOT imply I would let this play score.

Trust me Mike, you will get absolutely no where.

Yes Mike, my example was ridiculous, but it illustrates the point in question. Either the score would stand, or it would not. If you agree "not", why not? If you follow your interpretation that the player touching the ball, who had previously satisfied the requirement of being OOB, somehow reestablished himself as being inbounds by jumping up into the air (even though remaining clearly beyond the sideline), then as ridiculous as it seems, there would be no reason for the score not to count.

Forgive me, but that conclusion makes absolutely no sense to me, and is contrary to the basic concept of the game being played within the confines of a "field of play".

Where does your conclusion, "Any airborne player ANYWHERE is neither in nor out of bounds at that moment." come from? Actually a player who has been inbounds and leaps across the sideline is absolutely considered inbounds until he comes down (or touches something) OOB.

I'm not making up a rule, it simply makes common sense to me that when a player has completed the requirements of being OOB (by touching the ground while OOB) he is OOB. As for a player being forced OOB, the rule is that his touching OOB should be ignored if, and when, forced, although he would be required to return inbounds immediately at the first opportunity to regain playing status.

Absent being forced OOB, A or K cannot legally participate in play after being OOB and B or R can only participate after returning within the confines of the field. Therefore, what sense does it make, either football sense or common sense, to allow such a player, who has satisfied the requirement of being OOB to participate while he is still beyond the playing field?

No, I don't believe I'm "making up a rule", I believe the interpretation suggesting leaping into the air after being OOB, somehow eliminates being OOB is a silly semantic attempt to subvert the practical intent and application of NF:2-29-1.

Alfie, I'm glad you're comfortable with your position but it has no basis in reality.

My authoritative source is the FED rule book. Try looking up 2-29, the definition of "Out of bounds." This has been offered to you numerous times and you continue to dismiss it and replace it with your own 'common sense.' That's nothing but common foolery.

Sorry Waltjp, but I'm still waiting for you to share your, "accepted interpretations published by FED", about this issue. We're both very familiar with NF:2-29 and it does not address this question.

If you have a problem with "common foolery" please be kind enough to explain how the ridiculous example I used, to highlight the absense of logic behind your interpretation makes any common, or football, sense whatsoever. On the contrary it subverts and makes a mockery of the idea of applying basic common sense to the enforecement of rules in general.

However, if you're satisfied with following an interpretation that you CANNOT rationally explain, that decision is yours to make. Good luck with it.

I wasn't going to jump in again, but I have to. You made a ridiculous example that CANNOT be a touchdown (exactly like the OP) - and use this to "prove" that your interpretation of the rule is correct. This would be Example 1 on a logic professor's board when he's explaining Fallacy.

The OP (and your example) aren't TD's ... but not because this invented status of "in bounds" was both created and subverted by the examples. I invite you to show me where the rules say anything about "in bounds" wrt a situation even remotely like what we're talking about.

Thing is ... a player is out of bounds... or he's NOT out of bounds - that's it. And NOT out of bounds does not necessarily mean IN bounds (not that that matters, really).

You actually, FINALLY, found the right word that leads you to the right rule that allows a referee to not allow this play to stand. You don't have to invent a misinterpretation of out-of-bounds which is actually invalid in another similar situation. You HAVE a rule - and it's not the one you refer to. However, I'll leave you to figure it out, should you stop being obstinate and try to become an actual official that follows the rules we're given. You choose not to try ... no skin of my nose - and NOW I'm out.

I'm really hope you feel a lot better Mike, and am glad you still have all your nose skin, now go take a pill and relax. I fully understand there's no definition of being "Inbounds" and understand it might be helpful if there was, but I really don't think it's that big a deal as the game has survived for 130+ years without one.

I have never once suggested to anyone how they should consider this situation, but have suggested only how I consider it, which boils down to little more than, "much ado about nothing".

I never said that "my interpretation is correct", I said that my interpretation makes sense to me and I would be comfortable explaining the logic behind my interpretation. Honestly, I can not imagine explaining rationally how the interpretation that the ball remains alive under these circumstances, and to date NOBODY has been able to offer any rational explanation either, outside of demanding, "That's what it says". I don't accept that conclusion.

You should do what you believe is the correct thing to do, which is what I plan to do should this situation arise. I'm not making up my own rule, I simply don't accept your explanation of what you think NF: 2-29-1 means, because I cannot make any sense out of it and it seems clearly contrary to the objective of the rules being rational and reasonable and serving a purpose.

As I've suggested, repeatedly before, if you could explain some rational that makes the slightest bit of sense to the interpretation of a player who has satisfied the requirements, of being OOB, can somehow return to being legally able to participate, although remaining clearly OOB, by simply jumping up into the air, I'll be happy to reconsider my position. Until then, I'll stick with my instincts, if that's OK with you.

Alf, the truth is you don't like the rule and don't want to enforce it the way it's written. You hide behind common sense and logic to avoid reality. Be honest, have you talked to any other officials in your area about this play? Do they share your reasoning? - or do they walk away mumbling to themselves?

The rule clearly says that a player is out of bounds when he is "touching" something that is out of bounds. Unless you can prove that the something is air you have no argument.

The rule disputes your stance. What documentation can you produce to show the rule to be incorrect?

Walt do you have the necessary college degree to analyze the complex, verbose phrase "is touching"?

Well, you've got me Waltjp, I'll admit I deliberately try and, "hide behind common sense and logic" as much as I can. I'm still waiting for you or ANBODY to simply state some example, some rational for your interpretation NOT to be absolutely ridiculous and totally contrary to the basic concept of the game of football. Given such evidence I'll be happy to reconsider my position, until then I'm going to stick with that "common sense and logic" stuff.

There is no dispute that the rule requires a player to touch something OOB, before completing the process of having become OOB. I have yet to read that part of the rule that requires that player to continue touching, once there has been touching, which made that player OOB. Perhaps that's one of those, ""accepted interpretations published by FED" I'm anxiously waiting for.

I tried to demonstrate an extreme and silly example of what your interpretation would allow, as a means of demonstrating just how dopey your argument seems and where it could lead. As improbable and nutty that example was, under your interpretation, it would be legal.

So save us both a lot of time, and stop and think about what your interpretation would allow, which is exactly opposite to what the rules try and generate, rather than continuing to bellow the same point about what the rule actually says, and doesn't say.

Well, I ain't no English major, but I thunk I learned it good, back in 1st grade.

Alfie, why are 3 points scored when you kick it through the uprights for a field goal, but only 1 point when kicked through the same uprights following a TD?

Because that's what the rule book says.

Why is a player not considered out of bounds when he's not touching something that's out of bounds?

Because that's what the rule book says.

Common sense and logic tell me there's no advantage gained when a player momentarily grasps and then releases an opponent's facemask but the rule book wants me to call this a foul.

What? You mean "is touching" and "touched at some point in the past" are not the same thing?

I've given your example ... twice. But you ignore it. So why bother.

Is the rule book too obtuse for you?

BTW - what do you have to back up your ridiculous opinion?

Just that old, "common sense and logic thing", Walt. It's not about being "obtuse" (nice word) or verbosity, it's simply a matter of understanding the game and what it's all about. You keep reaching for analogies and each one you grasp is further from relating.

It's not about scoring 1 point versus 3, not about a player safety issue like grasping a face mask. It's more about NF: 1-1-1 and 1-1-2 than all the nonsense you're trying to find.

I can't determine when NF:2-29 was last revised, if it ever was revised but the Oficials manual suggests the rule regarding "going out of bounds and returning applies to A or K only" was part of the 1991 revisions. I wonder why nobody apparently had a problem with this whole situation until a couple of years ago when someone (don't know who exactly) floated this nonsense about a player who has clearly established himself as being OOB, somehow majically retained the status of being Inbounds, by simply jumping up into the air, while remaining OOB, because the wording is "Is touching" rather than just "touched".

Please note, the rule doesn't say anything about "continuing to touch", it simply states when that player is touching he becomes OOB, as opposed to when he might be airborne beyond the sideline/endline but has yet to touch down. However, when he is touching he becomes OOB. Where does it mention anything about him no longer being OOB if his touching stops or is interrupted?

Much more importantly, what could conceivably be the reason for allowing this player, having satisfied the requirements of being OOB, to lose that designation, which according to your daffy interpretation allows him to participate in the game, even though he is still clearly outside the confines of a "retangular field 360 by 160 feet? (NF:1-1-2) Sorry, there's that common sense and logic thing again. If you've got additional insight, I'm willing to consider it, but please spare me all your gramatical silliness.

Did the game change? The object of the game change? I don't think so. For me, it's just a lot easier to understand that this "unique" interpretation, and what it wouild suggest would happen, is just so silly, so contradictory, so ridiculous it's simply NOT right.

If you want to believe that is what NF: 2-29 is telling us, you can believe it. I do not accept your interpretation of what you conclude 2-29 instructs.

Is English your native tongue?

No. It's troll.

And I don't know why you encourage it.

Why yes, English is my primary language. When I realize I have absolutely nothing of any value to offer, or am incapable of explaining something reasonably I choose to simply remain silent, rather than try and bark my way along.

You should consider that approach, because repeatedly ducking the question and relying on childish snarky remarks to bolster your position isn't working all that well for you.

And yet you offer nothing to back your position. :rolleyes:

C'mon Walt be serious, I've done everything but draw you a GD picture. If you don't understand my position and reasoning, it is ONLY because you haven't been paying attention.

I understand You don't agree with my reasoning and have said repeatedly that is ENTIRELY your decision to make. I don't agree with your decision but I fully understand that has no bearing whatsoever on you, or how you decide to deal with this issue.

If you've got something to add to your previous conclusion of, "because (you think) it says so", let's hear it. I'll be happy to consider it. If not, I'm afraid the best we can do is agree to disagree, and move on.

I'm a newer official and can't get into some of the in depth rules arguments with you guys but I don't know why yall are giving ajmc such a hard time. I agree with him. Doesn't the rule book make it clear that once you are out of bounds you remain out of bounds until you reestablish yourself in bounds? Besides he seems to be passionate about it, that should count for something!

Yes it does...in the basketball rule book. You will not find this anywhere in the football rules because it is a concept that does not exist in the NFHS, NCAA or NFL football rules. Read 2-29-1 and you will see that the rule plainly states that a player is out of bounds when he "is touching" out of bounds. Notice the use of the present tense.

It is entirely possible to be passionate and wrong at the same time.

No. Please post any rule that says anything at all about "re-establishing yourself". this is not basketball.

AJMC... A88 is forced out of bounds, and has touched out of bounds on the ground. From the sideline, he leaps in the air. The ball hits his hands... At this moment - is the play over? By definition, the play is over when the ball is out of bounds, and it has just contacted something that by your definition is out of bounds.

There are 3 possible continuations of this play. They have different results. The reason they have different results is that this airbound player is NOT out of bounds. Out of bounds is a present tense situation. It is not a status that gets flipped back and forth. There is no such thing as "in bounds". Something is simply either OUT OF BOUNDS... or it isn't. No one is claiming he is suddenly in bounds - that's you putting words in our mouths. We are, however, saying that by rule, he is NOT currently out of bounds when in the air.

By your definition, this play is over. However, consider the first 2 of these 3situations:
A) he catches this ball, and lands out of bounds.
B) he catches this ball, and lands in bounds.
Sitch A - WHEN HE LANDS, the pass is incomplete. (Note that it was not yet incomplete until he landed ... meaning that the player was NOT out of bounds when it hit him).
Sitch B - WHEN HE LANDS, the pass is COMPLETE - and the play is not yet over. But wait - by your opinion, this player was out of bounds at this moment - and can't catch the ball, despite rulings in the book otherwise.

So ... surely you recognize that this airborne player is not out of bounds. He has not, in basketballese, "re-established" himself in bounds. He is no longer out of bounds solely because of what.... because he is NOT TOUCHING (AT THAT MOMENT) anything that is out of bounds.

Now, Sitch C - the ball deflects off the player and into someone else's hands. Play on? Or no? The right answer is Play on. Not sure what your answer is, nor how you justify it based on your mistaken belief that the player is still out of bounds when he jumps, but I'm interested in hearing it.

Don't just dismiss the situation because THIS guy was forced out and the other was not. It's the same rules wrt out of bounds or not out of bounds - and the same regarding a ball contacting him.

Also note that the player IS out of bounds, not BECOMES out of bounds (which might imply some sort of ongoing status).

What does the case book say?

Is there an IR or AR or OR?

So you really believe that the rules makers intented to allow for someone to run beyond the end-line and onto the track , jump in the air (presently not out of bounds, by your interpretation) and bat the ball to a teammate who is standing wholy in the end-zone for a touchdown?

It's either a yes or no answer.

A player is "out of bounds when he is touching" out of bounds and I will rule he is still out of bounds until he is "touching inbounds".

Ah. Cool. Stay the H off my field then. I'll find a new HL - no worries.

Luckily, we're issued a rulebook that tells us otherwise.

I'll go back to the other one... How do you rule? A88 forced out of bounds and on his way back in. Pass in his direction, he leaps, and the ball hits his hands.

Is the play over?

Odd. You quote me saying one thing and asking you a question ... and then you tell me I believe something absurd, ignore the question posted, and then ask me a question I've now answered for you 3 times. The answer is no. Don't ask me again. Now, answer mine!

I figured you correctly, you are the "have it both ways" type to make your argument work for you.

Folks, there is a reason why this isn't addressed by the FED. Julian last year said he had no use for someone who had no concept of how football is to be played. If they had no more common sense than to argue your side, you were not worth the time setting you straight.

I'll take his advice and let you show the world how much you know about the game. You keep calling those holds 48 yards from the point of attack. ;)

However, I do reserve the right to ask you the question however many freaking times I wish. ;) ;)

What exactly am I trying to have both ways? You've asked me the same question 3 times now, and I've answered you. Why do you refuse to answer mine? I'll repost to make it simple:

To the OP, I've said repeatedly this is not a TD - I just keep saying that YOUR reason that it's not a TD is both faulty AND flies in the face of other rules. I believe that ALL of us here have "a concept of how football is played". You don't even know what I'm arguing at this point, however.

I believe their intention was for this to be illegal participation, as that is the last previously published Fed interpretation on the matter. This is consistent with the NCAA that treats this play as illegal touching. In either code, it is a foul.

I'm not so sure about not having to reestablish yourself, but I am cetain the intent of the rule isn't that a player can go oobjump from oob and touch the ball with no repercussions. I know it's not a popular stance but I think AJMC is on the right track here. This sounds like an egregious oversight by the rules and one that we should correct on the field. Sometimes common sense and logic have to prevail. I also ran this scenario by one of our veteran referees Trevor Melmac and he agreed that you can't let this go.

Just one try here. I can't believe I am letting myself get dragged into this thing.

A1 runs a route down the sideline. He accidentally steps out of bounds (not forced out) and then jumps to catch the pass. He then secures the ball and lands inbounds. Is he out of bounds or is this play still live?

Probably not. But then again the rulesmakers never intended for that A-11 offense to exist either and they had to fix that after the fact too.

Really? What happens if the bat is intercepted by B and run back for a TD? You taking that away from them with no clear rule reason to do so?

9-6-2, 9-6-1 for accidental; Fundamental I-6.

Bat? Is it a vampire bat? Edward would be so fast and strong that you would never see him step out of bounds! :p

It's truly a sad day when that juvenile Twilight crap invades an officiating board.

I will ignore your first statement as I do not intend to get in a pi**ing contest with you.

There is a literal interpretation of the rulebook and there is the spirit of the rules. There is the literal application of rules and there is the common sense application of the rules. The spirit of the rules and the common sense approach has served me well in 53 years of officiating. I am comfortable with my approach.

In your example , has A88 returned "to the field" as required by Rule 9-6-1? I would rule he has not, hence he is guilty of illegal participation.

i-6?

I wonder if this guy Walt actually officiates or maybe he just shows up at football fields and criticizes officials who actually understand the complexities of the spirit of the rule and how a referee's personal interpretations can actually be better than the rulebook.

Wow. I really hope you are in fact a troll. I knew I should have left well enough alone. Please carry on carrying on.

Thus the proof that your interp is not what FED or NCAA wants - this player is NOT illegal, and may even catch this pass so long as he lands with 1 foot first in bounds. There are caseplays for this in both books.

Mike, since you and Welpe are apparently such scholars of the English language, perhaps you can educate those of us struggling to keep pace. I keep asking for advice that couild help me understand some logical rational helping me to grasp why the rules would provide for a player who has absolutely and totally complied with the requirements of being OOB, to be given the opportunity to reverse that condition while remaining OOB and allowing him to interact with play from beyond the confines of the playing field.

Previous tense and your gramatical expertise aside, can you tell me ANY circumstance that would make this type of interaction fit with the basic concept of the game, as relates to being OOB?

There are exceptions to people being forced OOB, which allow them to return inbounds and participate, although there doesn't seem to be any exception to their being allowed to participate while remaining OOB. Offensive players (A or K) are NOT ALLOWED to exit the field and return (unless forced) and their otherwise returning is Illegal Participation.

It seems to some of us with less insight than you, that the rules try to clearly separate being OOB from being within the Field of Play, exceptions noted, so the simply question seems, " why would such an abstract interpretation that allows a player, who has clearly fullfilled the requirements of being OOB, be given this impractical and, dare I say silly, notion of regaining the ability to participate in the game while remaining beyond the field of play.

Surely, your special insight, can detail a reasonable explanation. If not, perhaps your headlights don't shine as far and as bright as you assumed they did.

I think your question and smart comments would be better directed to the rules committee because you really don't care about an answer from the knaves, do you? But then you also must think that both the NFHS and NCAA rulesmakers are a bunch of fools.

Willie, it's time to give ALF a cat and put him to bed please.

You guys are acting like ajmc is from another planet. I still agree with him and can't believe ya'll would let that play happen. I was illustrating this play in the driveway for a buddy of mine and he couldn't believe it was legal, even the nosey neighbor of mine Mrs Ochmonic agreed. Maybe we will all just have to agree to disagree...

Yabut Willie, what did your wife, Kate, say?

Well THAT was laced with sarcasm. I'm not sure what I did to bring on such bitterness (other than my probably-harsher-than-necessary response to golf).

It seems that you are reading only parts (or perhaps remembering only parts) of what I (and others ... I'm not the only person on here that understands what "Is Touching" means - just most have given up) have written.

Nowhere do I state (in fact, 3 times I state the opposite) that this play is a TD, yet asdf continues to both insist I did and proclaim that I am an idiot because I did... But I didn't. I didn't say it... and I don't think it.

Asdf seems to want to insist this is simply a pass to someone out of bounds. By rule it's not. He also wants to insist that "out of bounds" is some sort of "status" that must be reset by becoming "in bounds". It's not. In bounds is not a defined term. Our rulebooks have flaws ... but lack of definitions is not one of them. If it's not there, it's not a term. There is simply out of bounds (with the word IS in the definition twice), and not out of bounds. Saying that an airborne player over the out of bounds area (or who had previously been out of bounds) is still out of bounds is contradictory to the rule.

Of significance is the exception you mentioned. NO WHERE does it say the player must establish himself (a basketball concept) back in bounds before leaping for the ball. It says he must "immediately attempt to return". As long as he's doing that, he's not illegally participating, and touching the ball is not illegal touching. He DOES NOT have to reach in bounds first (This is important to note... if the ridiculousness spouted by ASDF was true, he would, because his fictitious "status" would still be "out of bounds", which would then cause the play to be dead when the ball touched this "out of bounds" player. And according to caseplay (and thus ... with the "spirit of the rules" you and he want to refer to, because leaning on the actual rulebook is too hard, I guess) - the player MAY jump from out of bounds, catch the ball, and land in bounds for this to be a completed (and legal) pass.

I've explained THAT 3 times as well. I'll make it simple if this isn't clear enough:

ASDF's assertion that a player who was previously out of bounds that jumps is STILL out of bounds is in direct contradiction to the rule that allows this player (if he was forced out) to catch a ball from OOB and land back in the field of play.

Now ... can we dial back the vitriole about 4 notches and actually discuss rules and how they apply?

You claim that an airborne player who previously met the criteria for being out of bounds is neither inbounds nor out of bounds.

My ridiculous scenario of a player intentionally running beyond the end line, going airborne and batting a pass to a teammate wholy inbounds could not possibly, by your interpretation, be illegal. We know by rule that a player who intentionally runs out of bounds "shall not return".

If he is neither inbounds nor out of bounds, he certainly cannot be judged as a player who has returned, thus making his actions, (again, by your interpretation) legal....


Now..... Just for grins.........

Please review 1-2-1 and then 2-10-1 & 2........

Afterwards, take a moment to revisit 9-6-1. Notice, that the term "to the field" appears twice.

This is IP all day, every day.............

Um... well... of course it is. And Illegal touching in NCAA. AJMC wants to call this an incomplete pass. Which is what I'm arguing with. What are YOU arguing with?

(BTW - if you incorrectly believe this out of bounds player remains out of bounds when he jumps up ... why do you correctly have Illegal participation? If this is merely an out of bounds player - who is participating - it's simply a pass hitting something out of bounds (in this case, A88), and incomplete. You DO, now, have the right answer. But your right answer is 100% in conflict with all this screaming and yelling about an OOB player remaining OOB when he is no longer touching anything OOB).

This is one of the case plays. He is not out of bounds. But he is guilty of IP or IT (depending on code). Play on, but there's a flag on the play.

Which case play might this be?

Do you have a moment to respond to the other one?

AR 7-3-4-V

Eligible receiver A44 is running a pass pattern near the sideline. As
a legal forward pass comes toward him, he accidentally steps on
the sideline, leaps, muffs the pass into the air, returns to the ground
inbounds, grabs the ball and lands on his knees inbounds with the
ball firmly in his possession.

RULING: Illegal touching. Penalty— loss of down at the previous spot.

After reading ALL the posts, this one sounds most logical to me. If a player is defined as being OOB when touching OOB, the reverse most likely is true - he is determined to be INBOUNDS when he is touching inbounds.

You know, my biggest fear, and the reason I didn't just start ignoring the idiots, was that an otherwise intelligent official might read their drivel and BELIEVE it. Please don't.

Just read the book - the rulebook makes complete sense on it's own. It says a player is out of bounds (not BECOMES and out of bounds player, or anything denoting some continuing effect ... IS ) when he IS TOUCHING (not was touching or had touched in the past ... IS ) something out of bounds. there is no "inbounds". Just out of bounds and NOT out of bounds. Touching something outside the field of play or NOT touching something outside the field of play.

If the reverse was true, they would have said so. All chickens are birds does not mean all birds are chickens.

And consider the case play I keep bringing up that flies in the face of their (and now your) interpretation. A88 forced out of bounds. On his way back to the field, he leaps from OOB, catches the pass, and lands in bounds. THIS IS A CATCH. If what you said above is true, then this player, having not "reestablished himself" a la basketball in bounds is still out of bounds - so the ball would be when it touched him. The case play and AR proves this NOT to be true.

[QUOTE=mbcrowder;688381]You know, my biggest fear, and the reason I didn't just start ignoring the idiots, was that an otherwise intelligent official might read their drivel and BELIEVE it. Please don't.

I agree wholeheartedly with the definition of OOB. I just don't think you can make the leap (NO PUN INTENDED) that because inbounds is not specifically defined that it means everything other than OOB.

Thanks, I can use that logic in my argument. See above.

I'm just a lowly FED guy, don't know anything about NCAA, but I can't find the FED case you keep referring to - please help. Thanks.

I'm not saying your position doesn't have merit - it has certainly caused me to think, but I should have been from Missouri. You gotta show me.

I'm not a FED guy... but I believe Welpe has referred a few times to the OP being in the Redding guide as IP (which at the very least IMPLIES that the airborne player is not out of bounds, but rather participating).

Regarding in bounds - you don't have to worry about defining in bounds - none of the rules in question refer to it. They tell you what out of bounds is, and they tell you what happens when the ball touches something out of bounds. Whether you choose to call everything else in bounds or NOT out of bounds is really immaterial - it doesn't matter at all - none of these rules talks about in bounds.

Let me ask it to you this way ... since you're a show me guy.

A88 is forced out of bounds. While returning, leaps from OOB, catches the ball, lands in the field of play on both feet. Your ruling? And your rule for making such a ruling. By What Rule do you definitively prove your ruling one way or the other.

This was last published in the 2003 Fed Casebook and was removed the next year. But the Federation has issued no retraction, change of ruling or otherwise since then. In the interest of saving space, the Federation often removes plays from the casebook but that does not mean they are no longer valid.

9.6.1 Sit D

Wide receiver A1 runs a pass route along the sideline. He takes two steps out of bounds and goes airborne. While in the air he: (a) bats the ball to A2 who catches the ball; or (b) catches the ball and lands inbounds; or (c) catches the ball and lands out of bounds.

Ruling:

In (a) and (b), the ball remains live and the catch is legal. A1 was not out of bounds when he touched the pass, however, he is guilty of illegal participation in both (a) and (b). In (c), the ball is dead and there is no catch or foul. (2-4-1; 2-28; 4-3)

This is in agreement with the NCAA and the Redding Guide's current interpretation.

Interesting that they specified 2 steps. As if acknowledging that it would be too harsh to hit someone for IP for just stepping on the sideline while looking back for the ball and then jumping off that foot to play the ball.

That solved the problem for me. Thanks.

Before I read Welpe's post I would have said incomplete pass. I would not have a specific rule for making such a ruling, except to try and apply common sense. BTW, you keep holding others to a standard you cannot achieve, using reasoning you condemn in the posts of those who disagree. For example, you claim that because OOB is clearly defined, then everthing that is not OOB is inbounds. Yet, when I suggest that because you have to touch OOB to be out of bounds, it follows that you have to touch IB to be in bounds, you call that faulty logic. It seems to me that I (and others) used the same logic you did, just came to a different conclusion. If that is not the case, then where is the SPECIFIC Rule that defines inbounds? You cannot define inbounds by the OOB definition without assuming something.

Now, having said that, I surrender! You are correct in your interpretation, not because of your faulty logic, but because of a specific case reference in the book.

One more thing and I'll quit - it is my contention that you can have illegal participation while out of bounds. Example - A88 runs OOB, realizes what has happened, and stops. B22 intercepts, starts up the sideline, A88 reaches out, while both feet are still touching OOB, grabs him by the jersey and tackles him. Illegal participation, right? So, being guilty of IP doesn't necessarily IMPLY that any player is not OOB.

Not trying to be a smart___ here, but why do you need to define in bounds? All that we need to know is the definition of OOB - as it affects several things. If you're not OOB, not of those items are in play.

I'm happy you understand the rule now. I find it odd that I'm not right because of my logic, but because of a case reference... what logic was used to get to the case reference? :)

Peace.

I see your point. I would say that in the play we're talking about it DOES imply he's participating ... because if he wasn't - he would simply by OOB and the play would end as an incomplete pass. Since it doesn't, he's participating.

But you are correct that IP in GENERAL does not necessarily imply the player is not out of bounds - and your example illustrates that.

I guess it's just a symptom of my OCD. :rolleyes:

Now THAT'S a great question. I wish I knew. But, knowing some history behind FED opinions, the powers that be didn't necessarily use logic. :D

Perhaps someday, Mr. Crowder, I may be as omnipotent and all knowing as you (seem to think you are), but until then I'll just have to be satisfied being considered "otherwise intelligent" and muddking along as best I can to understand, rather than just read, these rules. Perhaps you might share some of your brilliance, with a less fortunate, and clarify a minor point about, "the case play I keep bringing up (you apparently believe) flies in the face of their interpretation".

I seem to recollect that the rules, rather clearly, indicate that the act of a player being forced OOB by an opponent, is ignored when that player returns in bounds at the first possible opportunity. I'm well aware my grasp of English may not be as acute as yours, but I was under the impression that "ignoring" something happened in this context equates, essentially, to that action not happening, at least to the point of affecting anything.

So, in your repetitive example, the forced OOB player's touching OOB did not render him OOB because his touching OOB was ignored due to his being forced out by an opponent, so as regards the rest of this example, he has NOT been considered OOB, which I believe is the essence of this particular rule.

You also suggest, somewhere in your kind instructions to us "otherwise intelligent" idiots, that a player forced OOB, who elects to stay OOB and return at his convenience somewhere else, would be guilty of Illegal Participation for returning inbounds and touching/catching a pass. A ruling I wholeheartedly agree with.

Here comes that logic block again, If we agree that OOB player (other than forced) cannot come back within the confines of the field and legally participate, why would a player who doesn't even bother to try and get back "inbounds" be allowed to participate by jumping up in the air, while still OOB, and redirect an errant pass to a teammate who had never gone OOB? That doesn't seem at all consistent, or sensible, at least to me.

Someone of your apparant (to you) superior knowledge and understanding should be able to simply explain the logic of that conclusion and help me find some semblance of logic in a one time (and never repeated) 2003 Case Book example, that may very likely have simply been a mistake, that people felt so obviously illogical, didn't merit formally correcting.

I must admit, and acknowledge that for someome who identifies himself as, "I'm not a FED guy... " it's really generous of you to share your knowledge and overall wonderfulness so freely.

The case book play was published multiple years but please go on believing what you want.

Also feel free to have the last word because I know you will take it, I'm done wrestling with the greased pig.

A receiver goes OOB without being forced or remains OOB after being forced out. He has lost his eligibility to touch a forward pass. He then leaves OOB and touches a pass which bounds off of him to another receive who catches it and advances the ball to the end zone for an apparent TD.

The original receiver's touch is a foul, but it does not kill the play because the receiver is no longer OOB.

It doesn't matter if the receiver goes back to the hash marks or merely jumps in the air over OOB, if he's not touching OOB, he's not OOB. Throw your flag and let play continue.

Know what? I'm really sick of the completely unnecessary but constantly dripping sarcasm from your direction.
It's not. It's not consistent, or sensible. Do you read? Or do you just look for nuggets to jump on?

I NEVER said the play was legal, and never said it was a TD. I say that the OP is ILLEGAL PARTICIPATION. Which is what you allude to above. The play, however, is not dead. Your initial contention was to rule this an incomplete pass out of bounds. Not only have you been told you're wrong about 25 times, you've actually finally gotten yourself to the right answer in the course of telling me I'm wrong. Kind of funny, really. Your answer - incomplete pass - is wrong. In both codes.

If the reply is laced with sarcasm and condescention, I, like Welpe, am done.

Appreciate your input, Eastshire, but I can't agree with your assessment. NF:7-5-6-d advises, "A player who is eligible at the start of the down remains eligible throughout the down.", so eligibility is never "lost".

"Illegal Touching" (NF: 7-5-13" applies to, "An Ineligible A player has illegally touched a forward pass if he bats, muffs or catches a legal forward pass, unless the pass has first been touched by B", so any player (eligible or ineligible) who touches a pass OOB has not violated any rule and deserves no penalty. The touching simply kills the play.

If that A player (eligible or ineligible) is OOB (unforced) and comes back onto the field and participates (by touching, batting, catching or other wise participating in the play) they then commit the foul of Illegal Participation (NF: 9-6).

NF: 1-1-2 clearly defines, "The game football is played with an inflated ball by two teams on a retangular field 360 by 160 feet.", and a number of rules, including those mentioned above, deal with separating that playing surface from that which is considered OOB.

For more than 100 years there didn't seem to be much confusion about the separation of Inbounds and OOB, until this "unusual" interpretation briefly surfaced suggesting that a player clearly OOB could eliminate his inability to legally participate by simply jumping up into the air, while OOB.

I'm afraid I can't accept your advice, "Throw your flag and let play continue", because unless and until that OOB player comes back onto the playing surface and participates in the play, he has not done anything wrong.

My judgment, based on my understanding of the intent of this basic football concept (separating inbounds from OOB) is that considering that touching by an OOB player, whether touching the ground or jumping back into the air, produces the same result, of killing the ball.

As I've repeated stated, my judgment dictates ONLY my behavior, you need to determine what YOU believe correct and and follow your judgment.

2 bits of advice: (1) People in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks. (2) If you do decide to throw rocks, don't anticipate any sympathy from whining that rocks are being thrown back.

Mr. Welpe, Your inability to grab the "pig" may not be because he's greased, rather it may be much more the fault that you are trying to grab him while wearing boxing gloves (i.e. a really dumb argument).

But no one is saying this. In fact, quite the opposite, the point is that by jumping into the air the receiver is illegally participating in the play (or illegally touching the pass depending on the code).

What he is not doing is touching a pass while OOB. This is made clear by the case play where a receiver who has been forced OOB jumps in the air, catches the pass and lands on the field has made a valid catch.

A player in the air over OOB may be illegally participating, but he is not OOB. Again, flag the foul and let play continue.

Don't know about any "code" other than NFHS. A player who is OOB is NOT illegally participating when he touches a pass, nor is he guilty of illegally touching the pass, provided he is an eligible receiver.

When A player is "forced OOB by an opponent", his being OOB is ignored, so in essence his being OOB never happened, which is why his completing an airborne catch inbounds, is not considered Illegal participation, provided it is judged he, " returnes to the field during the down, he shall return at the first opportunity."

The issue we're talking about has nothing to do with being forced OOB. The suggestion is that a player who has satisfied the requirement of touching OOB, who remainsoutside the boundry lines OOB, can touch (bat or otherwise redirect) a forward pass back into the field of play, where a teammate can legally complete a catch, by simply jumping up into the air, while OOB. I don't accept that interpretation as I don't believe it makes any sense, common or football.

The example previously suggested, although totally ridiculous, illustrates the falicy of this interpretation. A88 (an eligible receiver) voluntarily leaves the field, and runs behind the team area. A throws a pass way OOB that A88 emerges from behind his team area, jumps up into the air and redirects that pass to A44 (another eligible receiver) who catches the pass, clearly inbounds, and advances to the EZ. A88 has not committed Illegal Participation as he has not returned inbounds. Returning inbounds is a requirement of NF: 9-6-1 and 2.

A88 is not illegally touching the pass, as he is an eligible receiver when he touched the ball, provided he began the down as an eligible receiver. Since neither penalty applies, are you going to allow the score? Common sense suggests, (at least from my interpretation) that since A satisfied all the requirements of being OOB, his subsequent touching of that pass, whether he is in constant contact with the ground OR NOT, renders the ball dead.

Rule 2-29-1

"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."

Rule 2-29-3

"A loose ball is out of bounds when it touches anything, including a player or game official that is out of bounds."

A88 has not met any of the requirements of 2-29-1 nor has the ball met the requirements of 2-29-3 at the point of touching. A88 has returned at the point of touching and is illegally participating.

B gets the choice: TD for A or the penalty.

The bottom line here is you are making up you own rule 2-29-1. Everyone else is using the one provided by the Fed.

I have intentional grounding... 5 yrds from previous spot, and loss of down...



Just kidding...

correct me if I'm wrong, but if a "A" player goes OOB on his own he it is Illegal Participating?

9-6-2 "During the down, no player shall intentionally go out of bounds and return." Penalty: "Illegal participation (Arts. 1, 2, 3, 4a [live-ball, basic spot]) – (Arts. 4b-f [live-ball, previous spot]) – (S28) – 15 yards."

So if he goes out of bounds but does not return, he is not illegally participating, the pass is just incomplete due to touching a player who is out of bounds.

Unlike 9-6-1 which specifies returning to the field, 9-6-2 merely says returns.

Let's make sure we're addressing the same question before we start defining the "bottom line". The scenario I've been addressing relates to a player who runs OOB completely on his own. No forcing out of any type. In running OOB he repeatedly touches the ground OOB, satisfying ALL THE NF:2-29-1 criteria for being OOB.

After, and while he remains, outside the field of play he jumps up into the air. The question is does he somehow retain the ability to legally participate, and affect, action simply because he has ceased touching the ground? All of the activity involved happens beyond the playing field boundry lines.

Please save yourself some wasted effort, I know exactly what NF:2-29-1, 2 &3 states and am not disputing the wording, I do not agree with the interpretation of those words that suggests that simply because a player jumps up into the air while OOB, after having completed being OOB by touching the ground OOB, he can continue to influence play.

Try as I may, I am unable to make any sense whatsoever to interpreting this, otherwise simple and straightforward definition, to accomodate this interpretation. I am unable to imagine an explanation of this interpretation that is logical in either a "football" sense or basic common sense. Thus far, NOBODY has come even close to offering a rational explanation for this interpretation serving any possible purpose, other than a gramatical excuse, "because it says so".

Sorry, I don't believe, or accept, that football rules are deliberately crafted to make no sense and serve no purpose, although their are numerous examples where they are worded inartfully. Any rule is only the written presentation of a thought, a thought intended to serve a purpose that is deemed necessary. I can't find the purpose in this interpretation.

So, if you really want to help me get to a different, "bottom line" show me where this "unique" interpretation makes the slightest bit of actual sense, either to the game, or in general. The arguments that this situation fits any existing penalty don't seem to hold water and allowing the results of such a play stand defies credulity, and the basic objective of the game (NF: 1-1-1). So, until I can rationally understand and explain otherwise, I'm comfortable with considering the situation as meeting the requirements, and intentions, of NF: 2-29-1. You go with what you're comfortable understanding and explaining.