Quote:
Originally posted by Bfair
Garth, I won't disagree that interpretations can change the black letter law. However, what I'm saying here is that I can accept verbal interps from accepted sources when it comes to "grey areas" not specifically addressed (i.e., can coach's interference occur during a dead ball). A batted ball lodged in equipment is specifically addressed by black letter law as written. That doesn't mean interpretation cannot override it, but it does mean (to me) that I'll need it in print by an authoritative source or I'll need it being mandated down to me verbally by my working association. Also, if Fed rule read the same as OBR, then I'd accept the OBR interp until Fed addressed the issue.......but that's not the case here.
That is, while I respect Tim tremendously, I'd not accept his verbal in Texas since he doesn't govern this state. IMO, the Fed needs to get changes to black letter law into print via casebook or rule change, or at least ascertain that if verbal it gets to the proper sources nationally.
The example you provide is not a good analogy because there already exists written case and interpretation that supports the change of the black/white print on that issue. I'd stand beside Carl on this one until changed somehow in print.
Just my opinion,
Freix
|
Again, and this somehow is getting lost in the translation, I have no problem with your position or Carl's "illustration of language". I don't care how anyone rules on this, should it EVER happen. The only reason I stayed in the thread was over my confusion as to where Carl's intepretatiom came from. That's all. It isn't FED's. They haven't issued one. And accordiong to Carl it isn't an interp at all. I then began to wonder if other BRD "interpretations" were also
not interpretations. Never got an answer.
Okay...fair enough. I have other things to occupy my time with.