Quote:
|
Originally posted by Bart Tyson
|
[B]Mick, Should officials be able to take part of a rule such as the "Designate throw-in spot" rule and apply it to parts of another rule such as the "throw-in" rule? Under definitions, rule 4-41 makes a distincion between "Throw-in and Designated Spot".
If a distinction was made between an end line throw-in and a designated spot, then I missed it.
Do we take the philosophy of; if the rule doesn't say a player can't do something then assume the player can? Or are we to take the philosophy of just because the rule doesn't say a player can't do something then we will apply parts of a another rule to cover the situation?
If we are assured the rules makers are omniscient, then we may subscribe to the former.
If we question the literal perfection of the rules, then our alternative may be the latter.
I'm not trying to be a smart-xxx, I'm attempting to put what you are say in prospective.
I know you aren't.
Neither am I.
My main problem is that I fail to understand
why the requirements of a running throw-in would deviate
without explanation, but with regard to spirit and intent, from a designated spot throw-in with regard to requiring a foot over the throw-in spot, when the other variables of running, and passing to a teammate, other teammates out-of-bounds, and change in width are specifically noted.
mick