Quote:
Originally posted by paulis
Self, I agree with you to a point but this situation clearly involves an area where there is going to be inconsistency, simply by the fact that it does not fit neatly into our rules. A definitive answer does not seem apparent and if such a situation arises on the court, at any level, give me a partner who can exercise common sense and understands the spirit and intent of the rules as opposed to a strict interpreter. I have a feeling that I would feel much more comfortable on the court with someone like Oz, whose philosophy seems to mirror mine, than with someone who might get caught up in overanalyzization. Just my humble thoughts.
|
Humble thoughts but a good post, nonetheless. There is no rule that is directly on point, which I've also previously stated. When there isn't, we either have to have an interpretation from the people who make decisions in our area or use our common sense.