Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
[/B]
|
Why is everyone forgetting the fundamentals....knowing the purpose and intent of the rule.
Yes, it may be worded poorly. However, at the time of the rule changed it was quite clear what case this was intended to cover.
It was meant to take the judgement out of a throw that just might have been a try.
[/B][/QUOTE]Can't agree with that at all. If it might have been a try, in
ALL cases, then there wasn't really any judgement present in the first place and no reason to make an editorial change. The rule covers any ball
THROWN from outside the arc. PERIOD!!!! There is no language or case play extant that would say otherwise. It's not our job to interpret the rules ourselves by adding language to it that isn't there- especially when there's absolutely no language available anywhere that will back up that personal interpretation.
If the FED wanted this play to
only apply to a "try", then there was no need at all to add the new language in the first place. The old language covered that "try" quite nicely.