RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: Bwest on May 09, 2014, 12:06:02 PM
-
I want to hear some other officials thoughts around the following scenario:
A 2/10 @ B30. QB A throws a fade towards the sideline. Receiver A88 jumps from the 1 yard line, catches the ball, and lands with both feet in bounds in the end zone. While he was in the air but before he touches the ball, his foot contacts the pylon.
As I understand it, by a strict following of the rule book we should have a loose ball penalty for illegal participation on this play, 2/25 @ A45.
Is that the interpretation we should go with here? What if the pylon was lying on its side partially in the field of play and the receiver stepped on it?
-
"WHEN properly placed, the goal line pylon is out of bounds...", so a pylon laying on it's side partially in the endzone would not be properly placed. If a receiver hit the properly placed pylon on his way up to catch the pass, I would see that the same as hitting the sideline as he began his leap to catch the pass and rule the catch incomplete with no foul. A QB would be throwing a bomb from behind A's 30 and his receiver would probably need wings to get the 70 yards downfield!! :)
-
A QB would be throwing a bomb from behind A's 30 and his receiver would probably need wings to get the 70 yards downfield!! :)
Whoops, changed to B. And why would you rule the pass incomplete if the receiver lept from out-of-bounds and caught the pass? Assuming he lands in bounds.
-
I concur with Ralph. The A player went out of bounds when he jumped (by touching the properly placed) pylon. When he touched the ball, it was out of bounds (by definition). When he returned in bounds the ball was already "dead" and the pass incomplete (because it touched him, the A player) while he was OOB.
Thus, the player did not commit IP because he never returned in bounds after going out of bounds. The ball was dead and incomplete the second it touched something OOB in this case the A player.
-
I concur with Ralph. The A player went out of bounds when he jumped (by touching the properly placed) pylon. When he touched the ball, it was out of bounds (by definition). When he returned in bounds the ball was already "dead" and the pass incomplete (because it touched him, the A player) while he was OOB.
Thus, the player did not commit IP because he never returned in bounds after going out of bounds. The ball was dead and incomplete the second it touched something OOB in this case the A player.
I can not agree with Johnponz on this one. The receiver is not out of bounds unless he "is touching anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside the sideline or end line.' In this play, the receiver touches the pylon, which is out of bounds if properly placed, BUT when he touches the ball (assuming that he is not still in contact with the pylon) he is no longer out of bounds. Since the rule book does not have a definition of "in bounds" the best that can be said about the receiver's location is that he is not "out of bounds". Therefore, when he is airborne and touches the ball, it is not (by definition) out of bounds and therefore dead and incomplete.
I think that by strict interpretation of the rule IP is what you have. I also believe that if you actually call IP you will wish that you hadn't.
I have been chastised before for reading the rules too closely. I have suggested in the past that the rule be changed to say that the in bounds vs. out of bounds status of an airborne player be changed to say that it is the same as where he last touched the ground or pylon.
-
I think that by strict interpretation of the rule IP is what you have. I also believe that if you actually call IP you will wish that you hadn't.
This is I want to get at and hear some more opinions on. The rules are the rules, but I can't say that if I was in that spot I would be throwing the flag. But I have a hard time reconciling that with the ultimate goal of enforcing the rules fairly.
-
Nit picking the rules is not a good idea. If this ever happens I would stand by the explanation. In the real world this is the accepted ruling for the reason that I stated.
-
Accepted where, John? See case play 9.6.1A
This whole OOB vs in bounds thing has been hashed out here and The Official Forum ad nauseum. If he isn't touching out of bounds, he is not out of bounds. You can't rule this an incomplete pass but you can't screw B over and award a score either.
Nit picking rules may be bad form a lot of times but splitting the baby in half on this one isn't going to work.
It is no different than if he grazed the goal post going up in the back of the endzone. I'm pretty sure that has been an NFHS test question for several years.
-
Nit picking the rules is not a good idea. If this ever happens I would stand by the explanation. In the real world this is the accepted ruling for the reason that I stated.
Even if we are trying to avoid "nit-picking" I don't think out of bounds is the best resolution.
Take the case of a receiver being pushed (way) out of bounds. Qb then throws the ball. The receiver, returning immediately to the field of play, jumps from out of bounds, catches the ball, and lands inbounds. By your description you would incorrectly rule the pass incomplete when the play is entirely legal.
-
I will agree that the way the Federation rules are currently written this is IP. I am grateful that the NCAA changed the rule this year so there it is an incomplete pass now.
-
Incomplete Pass... nothing else on this play. This play was not what the IP rule was put in place to prevent. Incomplete Pass... no harm done.
-
Incomplete Pass... nothing else on this play. This play was not what the IP rule was put in place to prevent. Incomplete Pass... no harm done.
The problem with the HS rule is they haven't corrected it to allow you rule support to make this ruling. I'm grateful NCAA has.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
-
I would much rather have rule support and a case play when I explain to A's coach why his receiver was flagged for IP rather than some made up BS answer as to why I ruled an obvious catch incomplete. The proposed alternative kills your credibility as now A's coach knows you will twist the rules to whatever rationale you dream up.
Fed and NCAA have all sorts of different rulings. If you can't juggle the differences, stick to one day or the other; or move to Texas or Mass.
-
As I said you convinced me I was wrong, but I am still allowed to say that I am glad this was cleared up on the college side.
You are right it is much better to have rules support. I can make up all kinds of reasons for being wrong, but the bottom line is I would rather be wrong on this board than on Friday night. The chances of seeing this play are slim, but now I will be sure to get it right. Isn't that the reason we are here?
-
It's too bad that we don't have high-tech pylons that magically appear when we need them & disappear when we don't.
From a philosophy standpoint, this should be a TD. A88 gained no advantage by brushing the pylon.
-
I have been advocating for years that the NF adopt something like the NCAA rule for when A players inadvertently step OOB. The IP rule for this is akin to using a sledge hammer to kill a gnat. But unfortunately it never seems to get any traction. As to this scenario I have to agree that unfortunately the only rule support we have is to rule IP.
-
It's too bad that we don't have high-tech pylons that magically appear when we need them & disappear when we don't.
From a philosophy standpoint, this should be a TD. A88 gained no advantage by brushing the pylon.
He did gain an advantage by using more than the field of play to complete his route. IP is just too much of a penalty for this offense.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
-
He did gain an advantage by using more than the field of play to complete his route.
I don't see the advantage. A88 brushed the upright pylon while in the air. Had the pylon not been there, or gotten knocked over earlier in the play, we'd have the exact same result with no penalty.
-
I don't see the advantage. A88 brushed the upright pylon while in the air. Had the pylon not been there, or gotten knocked over earlier in the play, we'd have the exact same result with no penalty.
Why do you think the rules don't allow A players to go out of bounds and return? By touching the pylon he has gone out of bounds. Too bad for him. It's also why you move the pylons in the middle of the back of the end zone away from the end line. The ones at the goal line have to be there though. This is pretty black and white. Just because we think IP is a bad penalty doesn't mean we can ignore it. Make this an incomplete pass and it's less of an issue.
-
Why do you think the rules don't allow A players to go out of bounds and return? By touching the pylon he has gone out of bounds. Too bad for him. It's also why you move the pylons in the middle of the back of the end zone away from the end line. The ones at the goal line have to be there though. This is pretty black and white. Just because we think IP is a bad penalty doesn't mean we can ignore it. Make this an incomplete pass and it's less of an issue.
I'm with my Bama brother on this one. I'm understanding this play to say that the receiver was in bounds for the entire play and the topic of discussion is the receiver jumping and kicking/brushing the pylon sitting in the corner of the endzone during his jump.
No advantage anywhere here. This also tells me if a receiver runs a hard out close to the goalline, dives, hits the top of the pylon with his arms as he catches the ball, and gets both feet down 5 feet in bounds, then it's ruled incomplete or IP bc he nicked the top of the footlong pylon?
Please...
-
By rule, ALStripes, if his arm touches the pylon before one of those feet gets down, that's exactly what it's telling you. I agree that the punishment doesn't fit the crime here since no advantage was gained, and I'd much rather simply call that an incomplete pass than an IP foul, but until the NFHS powers that be decide to listen to us and change that rule, that's what we've got.
-
As officials we are there to manage the game. There are numerous times when we ignore rules because of their intent is not meant for the given situation. How many of you are going to throw a flag on Team B when the Team A punter is doing a rugby style kick and Gets hit by the Team B player right after he kicks the ball away. Team B thought he was going to run with it, but by rule this is a foul. If a coach's sideline is the best darn sideline I have ever seen players and coaches are back off the white all the time, and all the coach does is take one step out on to the field to give play to QB then he gets back are you going to flag that 'by rule' too? If Team B DB lines up in the NZ to press on a WR initialy, then he looks in toward the ball and backs up some, are you going to flag that? and Bottom line is we are sent out to the field to manage the game. That is why it is important to not only learn rules, mechanics but also learn philosophies of the rules.
-
As officials we are there to manage the game. There are numerous times when we ignore rules because of their intent is not meant for the given situation. How many of you are going to throw a flag on Team B when the Team A punter is doing a rugby style kick and Gets hit by the Team B player right after he kicks the ball away. Team B thought he was going to run with it, but by rule this is a foul. If a coach's sideline is the best darn sideline I have ever seen players and coaches are back off the white all the time, and all the coach does is take one step out on to the field to give play to QB then he gets back are you going to flag that 'by rule' too? If Team B DB lines up in the NZ to press on a WR initialy, then he looks in toward the ball and backs up some, are you going to flag that? and Bottom line is we are sent out to the field to manage the game. That is why it is important to not only learn rules, mechanics but also learn philosophies of the rules.
So which rule are you going to throw out in this situation? Will you ignore the rule that states the pylon is out of bounds, and thus award a touchdown? Or do you ignore the rule that a player is inbounds unless he is touching out of bounds, and call the pass incomplete?
Also apologies to HLinNC if this topic is beating a dead horse.
-
I'm going to do what ever I have to do to manage the game. If the score is 45-0 deep in the 4th and the team loosing catches the ball I am going to rule TD. The the score is tied 14-14 last play of the game I am going to rule incomplete. Team A does not deserved the TD nor the foul and get an extra shot at a TD. I am not going to rule TD and give the Team A a TD. So by going by the IP rule are you going to throw a flag on a WR that goes OOB unintentionally (like one foot OOB on one step) and comes back in on the sideline opposite of where the QB was looking the whole play? Like I said we are out there getting paid the big bucks to manage the game and in this case that is what we are doing.
-
Managing the game and flagrantly ignoring the rules because your personal philosophy doesn't match the book are not the same thing.
-
Have conflicting emotions on the steps on the sideline aspect of IP. Have only ever flagged this once. Was BJ on state final. Two point conversion. Receiver is circling deep in EZ. QB tucks ball and starts to run. WR accidentally steps on end line. At this point had no intention of flagging but QB pulls up short and throws pass to receiver that stepped on end line. Now I throw the flag even though the foul had actually occurred about 2 steps earlier. If QB had run the ball probably never would have thrown the flag. That is the play that makes me advocate for a change to something similar to NCAA rule that would only make it a foul if he's the first to touch a loose ball, and even then make it illegal touching or something similar but not IP and no foul if he doesn't touch loose ball.
-
Facts not in evidence, younggun. The play in question has the receiver who brushed/nicked/touched the pylon catching the ball well in bounds.
I've still not seen any evidence on how one sells that as an incomplete pass without looking like a complete dufus or having their state playoff certification yanked when the film gets sent into the state office with the explanation.
-
Ralph, do you happen to know what is the reasoning of the NF rules committee to have these kinds of plays (player voluntarily going out of bounds and returning) flagged as IP and not as illegal touching, as in NCAA? As an NCAA official I don't see the point of having a big penalty for a procedural foul like this.
Out of curiosity, is it IP as well if a player goes OOB and returns during a kick?
-
If team K does yes. Team R can if they do the one foot on sideline and touch the ball play to put ball OOB.
-
If we actually call this foul the way it is written, that will give coaches and AD's the motivation to change the rule!
-
Ralph, do you happen to know what is the reasoning of the NF rules committee to have these kinds of plays (player voluntarily going out of bounds and returning) flagged as IP and not as illegal touching, as in NCAA? As an NCAA official I don't see the point of having a big penalty for a procedural foul like this.
Out of curiosity, is it IP as well if a player goes OOB and returns during a kick?
I can recall the illegal touching NCAA rule on this being on the docket only once and failed coming out of committee with very little support. Several of us have discussed plays similar to the OP informally and the general feeling is that this differs from a receiver touching the sidelines and continuing his pass pattern = IP. If the receiver touches the sideline / pylon in the act of attempting to catch the pass, the second he touches the ball it becomes dead and incomplete (2-29-1 & 3). Where the receiver then lands is then moot as the ball is now dead....That's my story and I'm sticking to it... :) :sTiR: :) ...and perhaps suggest a case play for this yEs:.
-
I can recall the illegal touching NCAA rule on this being on the docket only once and failed coming out of committee with very little support. Several of us have discussed plays similar to the OP informally and the general feeling is that this differs from a receiver touching the sidelines and continuing his pass pattern = IP. If the receiver touches the sideline / pylon in the act of attempting to catch the pass, the second he touches the ball it becomes dead and incomplete (2-29-1 & 3). Where the receiver then lands is then moot as the ball is now dead....That's my story and I'm sticking to it... :) :sTiR: :) ...and perhaps suggest a case play for this yEs:.
If that happened in a game (ruled incomplete) and the video came across your desk would you support?
-
YES ^no
-
Ok here's my proposed rule change to the IP rule as it pertains to this situation. This is the idea behind it not necessarily the proper wording. It is not IP unless both of the players feet are completely OB and he continues to participate. If he steps on the sideline or only one foot steps across sideline it is only a foul if he is first to touch a loose ball, and then the foul would be illegal touching.
-
I wouldn't make it that complicated, wvo. I'd just call it illegal touching, one foot, two feet, any body part.
Under the NCAA rule, if B were to touch it first, does that absolve A of stepping out of bounds and allow him to catch with no penalty?
-
Under the NCAA rule, if B were to touch it first, does that absolve A of stepping out of bounds and allow him to catch with no penalty?
Yes. After team B (or an official) touches the forward pass, all players become eligible, no matter how they became ineligible.
-
My reasoning for the 2 feet completely oob equaling IP was to prevent player from going oob intentionally and then retiurning as opposed to the player who accidentally steps on or slightly over sideline and might not even be aware he did it. I figure if you step both feet completely oob you should be aware you did it and know to not return
-
Try this for a possible proposed case, guys, and remember catching a forward pass is always preceded by touching a forward pass (2-4-2) :
*2.4.2 SITUATION : A11 ,while running passing route : (a) steps on 50 as he touches a forward
pass; or (b) steps on 50 as he begins to leap and touches forward pass while he is in the air; (3)
steps on 50 and continues to B's 45 where he catches forward pass. RULING : In (a) and (b) it is
an incomplete pass (2-29-1,3); in (c) it is illegal participation. The foul occurred when A11 returned
inbounds. This would be a loose ball play with previous spot enforcement.
Be careful what you wish for. Rules involving one or two feet in bounds, did B touch the ball first? would require the calling official(s) to be watching for more than he currently is. With 7, probably not hard --- with 4 or 5 , probably would be.
-
Is there a reason why we cant make this type of IP the go OOB and come back in a 5 yard vs. 15 yard a 12th man/all the other types of IP fouls. It just seems like stepping OOB by couple inches is too harsh penalty for that type of IP foul.
-
Ralph. In part b of your situation if receiver steps on sideline leaps in air touches pass but muffs it and it is intercepted by B would we instead rule that incomplete. Or would the incomplete ruling only apply if he completed the catch. As you pointed out touching precedes possession. That's one of the reasons I'd kind of like an illegal touching penalty in these cases. That way they would all be treated alike
-
Younggun - IMHO, many already find the IP rule confusing as is and making a 5 yarder if A/K only hits sideline but 15 if he took several steps OOB along the sidelines wouild only add to the confusion. WVoref - In B, once the ball is touched by OOB A the ball becomes dead regardless it ends up = incomplete pass.
-
If you add the proposed case play, what would be the result of this play?
1/10 at A-30. A89 is running a route close to the sideline and is blocked out of bounds by B30 at A-35. A89 stumbles out of bounds but immediately attempts to return. The QB A12 throws a legal forward pass towards A89 immediately after the contact. A89 leaps from out of bounds, secures the ball in the air and lands inbounds at A-36 where he is is downed by B30.
-
If you add the proposed case play, what would be the result of this play?
1/10 at A-30. A89 is running a route close to the sideline and is blocked out of bounds by B30 at A-35. A89 stumbles out of bounds but immediately attempts to return. The QB A12 throws a legal forward pass towards A89 immediately after the contact. A89 leaps from out of bounds, secures the ball in the air and lands inbounds at A-36 where he is is downed by B30.
Good point , Kalle. Where A89 was forced out by B he can return without a foul. If he caught the pass and landed inbounds you have a completion (2-4-1). Your suggestion would make a good "(d)" in my proposed case play. tiphat:
-
Good point , Kalle. Where A89 was forced out by B he can return without a foul. If he caught the pass and landed inbounds you have a completion (2-4-1). Your suggestion would make a good "(d)" in my proposed case play. tiphat:
So, what you are saying is that the definition of out of bounds depends on whether or not an airborne player last touched the ground out of bounds and how he went out of bounds. Isn't this needlessly complicated?
-
So, what you are saying is that the definition of out of bounds depends on whether or not an airborne player last touched the ground out of bounds and how he went out of bounds. Isn't this needlessly complicated?
I've a call in to the author of the 2012 rule change on catch to get his opinion on this. You guys will be the second to know.
-
Try this for a possible proposed case, guys, and remember catching a forward pass is always preceded by touching a forward pass (2-4-2) :
*2.4.2 SITUATION : A11 ,while running passing route : (a) steps on 50 as he touches a forward
pass; or (b) steps on 50 as he begins to leap and touches forward pass while he is in the air; (3)
steps on 50 and continues to B's 45 where he catches forward pass. RULING : In (a) and (b) it is
an incomplete pass (2-29-1,3); in (c) it is illegal participation. The foul occurred when A11 returned
inbounds. This would be a loose ball play with previous spot enforcement.
Be careful what you wish for. Rules involving one or two feet in bounds, did B touch the ball first? would require the calling official(s) to be watching for more than he currently is. With 7, probably not hard --- with 4 or 5 , probably would be.
As the current rules are and with your explanation of what happens in part b I like your proposed play situation. The thing I still don't like is that in part c it's an IP whether or not the receiver touches the pass. As currently written its a foul simply because he continues his route after inadvertantly stepping on sideline even if he is unaware he did.
-
I've a call in to the author of the 2012 rule change on catch to get his opinion on this. You guys will be the second to know.
After further review by the replay official ( the author of ther rule that outlawed the Oregonian flea-flicker a few years ago) : Kalle's play should be ruled an incomplete pass. There is no foul on A89 for trying to re-enter the field of play as he was forced out, BUT he hadn't re-entered when he left his feet to touch / catch the pass. In simple terms : You are where you were when you took off. In (b) and now (d) ,you took off from OOB and you can't be inbounds until after you land there.
-
In simple terms : You are where you were when you took off. In (b) and now (d) ,you took off from OOB and you can't be inbounds until after you land there.
Just like basketball, which some have argued is not the case.
-
After further review by the replay official ( the author of ther rule that outlawed the Oregonian flea-flicker a few years ago) : Kalle's play should be ruled an incomplete pass. There is no foul on A89 for trying to re-enter the field of play as he was forced out, BUT he hadn't re-entered when he left his feet to touch / catch the pass. In simple terms : You are where you were when you took off. In (b) and now (d) ,you took off from OOB and you can't be inbounds until after you land there.
We need to get that in the book somewhere, if that's the general intent. Remember the discussion about the play where the player went out of bounds beyond the end line, and tipped the pass back into the field of play after he had jumped in the air?
-
After further review by the replay official ( the author of ther rule that outlawed the Oregonian flea-flicker a few years ago) : Kalle's play should be ruled an incomplete pass. There is no foul on A89 for trying to re-enter the field of play as he was forced out, BUT he hadn't re-entered when he left his feet to touch / catch the pass. In simple terms : You are where you were when you took off. In (b) and now (d) ,you took off from OOB and you can't be inbounds until after you land there.
He's not in bounds so he hasn't completed IP. But he's also not out of bounds so the pass is not incomplete either. The rule change a couple years ago addressed the situation where the player goes out of bounds intentionally and then participates. But under the current rules this is NOT an incomplete pass.
There seems to be more interest in the NFHS rules committee adopting rules similar to NCAA and this would be a GREAT place to do that. A players goes out of bounds and is the first to touch the ball it's illegal touching. He's excused if he was pushed out. If a B player or official touches it first he's fine. The penalty is loss of down at the previous spot (essentially an incomplete pass). This year's NCAA rule change also addresses the player who touches out of bounds and then leaps and touches the ball. No need to reinvent the wheel on something like this.
-
There seems to be more interest in the NFHS rules committee adopting rules similar to NCAA and this would be a GREAT place to do that. A players goes out of bounds and is the first to touch the ball it's illegal touching. He's excused if he was pushed out. If a B player or official touches it first he's fine. The penalty is loss of down at the previous spot (essentially an incomplete pass). This year's NCAA rule change also addresses the player who touches out of bounds and then leaps and touches the ball. No need to reinvent the wheel on something like this.
Agreed. An NFHS interp that does this is putting something in the book that isn't actually there.
-
I can't help but call IP in this case. If you call it, and you get a phone call from the state, you went by the rule book. If you don't call it, and you get a phone call from the state, you amended the rule book based on your own philosophy. This would not turn out well in your favor.
-
To give my case proposal rule support, 2-29-1 would need to be amended to include : "A player or other person is out of bounds when any part of the person is touching OR LAST TOUCHED anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside the sideline or endline." There is no definition of when a player is inbounds, only when out of bounds and while airborne from Planet Earth the player is no longer touching down in OOB ,so via lack of a definition of being inbounds and the player is no longer OOB by rule and would be considered inbounds (as would all cheerleaders as they jump along with huntin' dawgs, excited fans and the like). I feel an incomplete pass is a fairer call in this situation but rule 2-29-1 would need to be tweaked. Can anyone think of a disadvantage of adding "or last touched" as I proposed?
-
Seems like a simple, practical and effective solution, that is long overdue and would satisfy those who find it necessary to need written authorization.
-
Quite a thread and I hope I never see this play on Friday night. But if I do, here are my thoughts.
1) the touched pylon had better visibly move or I have nothing.
2) If the pylon does visibly move, I am tossing my hat to the pylon. I know this is not at an NFHS mechanic, but I want everyone to know that I saw the player OOB.
3)When he touches the ball I am throwing my flag for IP.
4) When he catches the ball I am indicating incomplete pass.
The A team is going to go nuts on this one, but the rules support the call and again I hope I never see this play on my watch.
-
3)When he touches the ball I am throwing my flag for IP.
I do not believe that it becomes IP until he touches the ground in bounds. To qualify for IP, the receiver must go out of bounds AND return to the field.
4) When he catches the ball I am indicating incomplete pass.
Catching includes touching the ground in bounds. I do not see how you can rule this to be an incomplete pass, unless he is still touching the pylon when he first touches the ball.
As previously discussed, this problem would go away if the NFHS defined "in bounds".
-
but the rules support the call
The ones you make up don't count.
-
HLNC,
You got me. After further review, I agree the pass is not incomplete.
Prab,
You got me too. I will wait until a foot touches the ground before I throw my flag.
-
I will wait until a foot touches the ground before I throw my flag.
SEE...
READ...
THEN REACT.
Patience is a virture that will keep you out of a lot of soup.
-
AMEN and so is basic, common sense.
-
??? ??? I've been pondering : (1) Why don't we have a definition of being inbounds ??? ???? ; (2) How a player running inbounds could step out of bounds, leap up in the air and then land inbounds ??? ??? ? - (a) prevailing gale force wind blowing inbounds; (b) sideline was on the side of a mountain ; (c) an earthquake occurred while player was airborne and the sideline moved ; (d) gravitational pull caused by alien space craft; (e) double-jointed player that has a future in the circus. ??? ??? ??? Might be easier to find a definition for being inbounds that succeeding the feat in #2 ??? ???. Almost high noon ,time for a lobster roll and clam broth martini - hope all are enjoying the weekend & Happy Father's Day tiphat:
-
??? ??? I've been pondering : (1) Why don't we have a definition of being inbounds ??? ???? ; (2) How a player running inbounds could step out of bounds, leap up in the air and then land inbounds ??? ??? ? hope all are enjoying the weekend & Happy Father's Day tiphat:
There's always the possibility that the rule makes presumed common sense, the laws of physics and basic logic would outweigh the necessity for trying to create the ridiculous by twisting an interpretation of the verbiage down below the reach of a gnat's eyelash.