Quote:
Originally Posted by pavbref
The only other casebook ruling that is close is 7.1.2-a which covers the original fault--i.e #7 listed on line-up but #8 is on the court. Everything else follows based on the fact that #8 substituted for #7
|
Correct. We aren't, by rule, "correcting" or "fixing" their lineup error; all we're doing is facilitating a substitution, 8 for 7. 7 is still in that position for the duration of the set, just like any non-exceptional substitution.