Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dan_ref
Well no, that's what you don't understand, apparently.
They are *exactly* the same by the wording of the definition, minus the exception. And the exception (airborne shooter) is consistent with the given definition without explanation. If the PC is by an airborne shooter then by definition under the fed it is not a TC - no team ctl. If the PC is by the player in control of the ball then by definition we have a TC - team ctl. By definition that's all that matters, did the fouling team have ctl of the ball. If the fed decided to remove the airborne shooter exception (make it the same as those rules you don't care about) then the definition of TC would remain exactly as is. It's all in there, it's all consistent, you just don't want to see it.
No biggie.
|
So we're all blind except you? Gees, that sounds like something...well never mind. Faced with the rule, unable to provide an interp or case play. Is your last name Rutledge?
No my hardheaded friend, you're the one who refuses to see it. You want to ignore the exception. You want to offer things like "if the fed....." Well, you can't ignore the exception and the Fed hasn't changed anything. It is what it is. If and when they do, people like myself, Jim, Juulie, and others will agree with you. Until then, you're wrong and you'll continue to be wrong.
I'm done.