|
As a professional logician, I'm afraid I don't see the contradiction. Suppose the throw-in is first touched by a player OOB. That meets the test of 7.6.1, but fails the test of 9.2.10.
Just because it's not a violation of one rule does not entail that it's not a violation of another. In my example, the throw-in does not violate the rule requiring the throw-in to be touched by a player before going OOB, but it does violate the rule that prohibits the throw-in first being touched OOB.
FWIW, I disagree with PYRef: this is not a modal claim, but rather two distinct violations that happen to have the same penalty.
Can anyone provide an example that both is and is not a violation of one and the same provision of the rules?
__________________
Cheers,
mb
|