|
Interesting discussion.
I called my board interpreter to get his take. With no prompting, he said it was a correctable error. I challenged him, citing the rule (4-14-2) that a player is not disqaulified until the coach is notified. He did not budge. Then I told him of the 2001 Fed ruling. That got his attention. He called another interpreter, who had the other view -- the one that backs me and the Fed. So my interpreter called me back and said his ruling is now that the points stand because of the clear language of 4-14-2.
In the end, he said he did not have a good explanation as to why the Fed issues a ruling, but does not keep it current. As I review the casebook plays like this, it seems that the "obvious" rulings remain in the case book, but this one gets pulled out. As for the Illinois ruling, I wonder if the interpreter would have a different view if he had all the facts -- as my interpreter did.
|