Question on two different plays

[LarryW60]

I include Reddings in any "cuz someone says so" statement.  Reddings is a third-party operation offering their interpretation of NFHS rules - supposedly based on the Casebook plays - but as has been noted elsewhere they continue to offer opinions (on at least one rule) based on casebook plays that haven't existed for years.  No rule support nor casebook support, yet people hold the Reddings guide up like it's some sort of ultimate authority.  It's not.

[hoochycoochy]

[/color][/color]

The thing that "sucks" for me is that his position is not defined when he's in the air. I have no problem with IP (but maybe illegal touching would be more appropriate).

I disagree about being in the air.  If he's touching OOB then he's OOB.  If he's in the air then he's not OOB as he's not touching.  Simple.  That is the interpretation from Redding.  This isn't basketball, nowhere does it say he has to reestablish himself.   

[AlUpstateNY]

There's a technical difference here.  There is no definition for "inbounds". 

Excuse me, NF: 1-1-2, states pretty clearly, "The game of football is played with an inflated ball by two teams on a retangular field 360 by 160 feet........", and supported by the accompanying detailed diagram for an "11 player Football Field Diagram" at the front of the NFHS Rule Book establishes, somewhat specifically, what constitutes "inbounds". 

For the first 100+ years, until 2003 or so when this Case Book interpretation briefly appeared (then quietly disappeared) people generally understood the difference between inbounds and OOB, because the differences MADE SENSE.

The effort to further explain, what seemed to already be generally understood, has evolved into an almost perfect example of "spinning wheels in soft sand".  Considering the effort, elsewhere throughout the Rule Book to precisely separate Inbounds from OOB, the notion that a player, who clearly establishes himself as being OOB by touching the ground outside the "field of play" can somehow regain an inbounds status by simply jumping up into the air, while remaining beyond the the confines of the field of play, just doesn't pass any reasonable level of "smell test".

[ppaltice]

Here is Redding's quote (pg 40, 2009 Edition): "...the receiver was not out of bounds when he touched the ball since he was airborne, and not touching out of bounds when he contacted the ball."

As stated a definition for "inbounds" is not in the NFHS rule book nor is it referenced.  Any interpretation for "inbounds" is not supported by the rules.

For the OP's second case, I would be 100% sure he was neither a) touching the pylon when he touched the ball or b) he did not land with part of his body OOBs.  In both cases, the ball is incomplete.  In the play described, IP is pretty harsh and I would be 100% that the player is guilty.

And in the case AB mentioned, that is what should be an easy call and the officials botched it.  I can say this is my 14th year and this year was the first time I have had this happen (an A player stepping on the sideline and returning).  It does not happen very often and is easily confused.  Fortunately, I know the rules and flagged him as soon as he returned, but I can see where it would be easy to mess it up.

[AlUpstateNY]

As stated a definition for "inbounds" is not in the NFHS rule book nor is it referenced.  Any interpretation for "inbounds" is not supported by the rules.

What part of, "played with an inflated ball by two teams on a retangular field 360 by 160 feet........", and supported by the accompanying detailed diagram for an "11 player Football Field Diagram" at the front of the NFHS Rule Book establishes, somewhat specifically, what constitutes "inbounds", fails to satisfy "supported by the rules"? 

 

[Atlanta Blue]

What part of, "played with an inflated ball by two teams on a retangular field 360 by 160 feet........", and supported by the accompanying detailed diagram for an "11 player Football Field Diagram" at the front of the NFHS Rule Book establishes, somewhat specifically, what constitutes "inbounds", fails to satisfy "supported by the rules"? 

 

Because it defines the definition of the field, but does not define when a player is inbounds.  Using the definition you give above, any player that jumps in the air is no longer inbounds, because he is not ON the rectangular field.

As has been pointed out on this and other boards MANY times, and discussed ad infinitum, it is a hole in the rules.  I have heard from someone on the NFHS Rules Committee that it will be discussed at the next meeting in January.

[Curious]

Now THIS is what I'm looking for - dialog from veteran, free-thinking officials.

Inferring these plays are legal, IMO, is counter-intuitive, defies common sense, and (as Al points out) "IS NOT FOOTBALL ... AND DOES NOT PASS THE SMELL TEST"!

(God, I hate agreeing with Al)....

Anyway, our objective ought to be to get this issue clarified one way or the other.  For those who feel these plays violate the spirit of the game, how do get the Rules Committee's attention?

[Curious]

Music to my ears!

[hoochycoochy]

Because it defines the definition of the field, but does not define when a player is inbounds.  Using the definition you give above, any player that jumps in the air is no longer inbounds, because he is not ON the rectangular field.

      Now THAT passes the smell test. 

[Jackhammer]

There needs to be an exception created for the touching of a pylon.  The pylon simply is something concrete that denotes the intersections of lines that no one can see and these are the only 8 places on the field where it matters (4 on the end line should be moved back) if a player touches them.  There's no foul for IP if a leaping receiver allows his foot to go over a sideline, makes a catch and gets that foot back down....clearly it's a hole in the rules and definitions it should be fixed.

[AlUpstateNY]

Because it defines the definition of the field, but does not define when a player is inbounds.  Using the definition you give above, any player that jumps in the air is no longer inbounds, because he is not ON the rectangular field.

As has been pointed out on this and other boards MANY times, and discussed ad infinitum, it is a hole in the rules.  I have heard from someone on the NFHS Rules Committee that it will be discussed at the next meeting in January.

See what I mean about, "spinning wheels in soft sand".  When you get to the point of arguing down to the level of whether someting is 2 dimensional versus 3 dimensional, the discussion has gone too far.

Let's hope sane minds do resolve this (forgive me, but really stupid issue) in January, or sooner if possible.

[Welpe]

For the first 100+ years, until 2003 or so when this Case Book interpretation briefly appeared (then quietly disappeared) people generally understood the difference between inbounds and OOB, because the differences MADE SENSE.

You've made this claim numerous times but do you have anything to actually back it up?

Do you think the NCAA is wrong and not applying common sense since they have an AR that clearly says that the receiver is not out of bounds?  The NFHS and NCAA differ in many areas but I am not aware of a difference between the two on something so fundamental.

[hoochycoochy]

You've made this claim numerous times but do you have anything to actually back it up?

Do you think the NCAA is wrong and not applying common sense since they have an AR that clearly says that the receiver is not out of bounds?  The NFHS and NCAA differ in many areas but I am not aware of a difference between the two on something so fundamental.

So the NF and the NCAA and the Redding Guide all seem to be in sync???  Weird.    

[AlUpstateNY]

You've made this claim numerous times but do you have anything to actually back it up?

Do you think the NCAA is wrong and not applying common sense since they have an AR that clearly says that the receiver is not out of bounds?  The NFHS and NCAA differ in many areas but I am not aware of a difference between the two on something so fundamental.

It's been a while since I've been involved with NCAA ARs, so I have no idea what the one you're referencing might say.  As for common sense, sorry Welpe, either you recognize it, or you don't.

[Curious]

So, what have we learned today kiddies?

According to the "Reddingites", it's possible for a player to be inbounds when he's running his pattern; then out of bounds when he jumps and is touching a pylon; then (again) in bounds while still in the air when he is no longer touching the pylon; then (again) out of bounds if he's touching the pylon on the way down; then in bounds (again) when, on the way down, he's no longer touching the pylon - all in about a second or two.

So exactly at which point does he illegally participate?  I just wouldn't want to throw my flag to soon....

Like I said: "counter-intuitive, defies common sense, is not football, and (still) smells!"  Let's throw in "absurd" while we're at it.

[hoochycoochy]

So, what have we learned today kiddies?

According to the "Reddingites", it's possible for a player to be inbounds when he's running his pattern; then out of bounds when he jumps and is touching a pylon; then (again) in bounds while still in the air when he is no longer touching the pylon; then (again) out of bounds if he's touching the pylon on the way down; then in bounds (again) when, on the way down, he's no longer touching the pylon - all in about a second or two.

So exactly at which point does he illegally participate?  I just wouldn't want to throw my flag to soon....

Like I said: "counter-intuitive, defies common sense, is not football, and (still) smells!"  Let's throw in "absurd" while we're at it.

I think there's a much easier way to learn all this.  All you need to know is the word "touching".  Is he touching or is he not?  Piece o' cake. 

[Curious]

All you need to know is the word "touching". 

Hooch,

Is that the verb or the adjective?

[Atlanta Blue]

According to the "Reddingites", it's possible for a player to be inbounds when he's running his pattern; then out of bounds when he jumps and is touching a pylon;

Correct so far.

then (again) in bounds while still in the air when he is no longer touching the pylon;

NO.  Redding or no one else says he is "inbounds".  He simply is not "out of bounds".  That's the problem with the current NFHS rule - there is this condition that is not out of bounds, and not inbounds.  He is only OOB if he is touching OOB.  If he's not touching OOB, then he's not OOB.

"Not out of bounds" is NOT the same as "inbounds".

[Curious]

"Not out of bounds" is NOT the same as "inbounds".

So where is he?  Is he still a player; a ghost....?

Ain't semantics fun.....!?

Look, I just hope they get this fixed (but then I'll have to find the next poorly worded rule to fight about).  That shouldn't be too hard

[VALJ]

Now, here's a twist.  What if the receiver returns to the ground in bounds after touching the pylon while airborne, catches the ball, gets blasted just after the catch, and fumbles the ball in B's end zone?  A recovers; or B recovers? Dead ball or live ball? TD? T'back? Incomplete pass?

Assuming the receiver comes to the ground in the field of play, rather than the EZ:

A recovers - if B declines the IP, A gets a touchdown.  B will most likely take the IP, enforced from - the goal line?  (Since that's where the receiver "went OOB" by touching the pylon and "returned" when he was no longer touching the pylon.)

B recovers - B can either enforce the IP and give the ball back to A, or decline the IP and take possession at the spot of recovery (if in the field of play) or the 20 (if recovered in the EZ).

If the receiver comes to ground in the EZ, B will have to accept the IP to prevent an A TD.  The fumble in B's EZ is immaterial as he fumbled a dead ball.

And I agree that the punishment is a lot harsher than the "crime", but I can only go by the rules I have.

[bama_stripes]

FED basketball has it right:  A player's status (inbounds/OOB, frontcourt/backcourt)continues until he establishes a different status.

Or, to put it in the vernacular, "He is what he was until he gets where he's going."

[Ump33]

FED basketball has it right:  A player's status (inbounds/OOB, frontcourt/backcourt)continues until he establishes a different status.

Or, to put it in the vernacular, "He is what he was until he gets where he's going."

So if you apply similar vernacular to Fed football,

“You are where you are (airborne), not where you left from (Out-of-Bounds) and you will not be where you are going (Inbounds) until you get there.”

[hoochycoochy]

So if you apply similar vernacular to Fed football,

“You are where you are (airborne), not where you left from (Out-of-Bounds) and you will not be where you are going (Inbounds) until you get there.”

Right, so when he's touching OOB he's OOB and when he gets airborne then he's not OOB. 

[Mike L]

the NFHS Rule Book establishes, somewhat specifically, 

"Somewhat specifically"? Is that like being kinda pregnant? Mostly dead?

[AlUpstateNY]

"Somewhat specifically"? Is that like being kinda pregnant? Mostly dead?

If you ever get a chance to look at a rule book, Mike, you'll know for sure.