[JRutledge]

I'm going to suspect that people in states have the details about the rules. Again because we have people here going nuts over this, does not mean that those concerns were not already discussed. I just do not think (But I know I do not know for sure) that this rule was to allow previous interpretations to stand. This rule was always a "cheap" penalty for a play that did not go out of bounds. I cannot imagine that they really wanted to keep some silly contested interpretation. I would not be surprised that many did not even know that interpretation was even there until last year. I can imagine someone sparked the change with that fact alone.

Peace