Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Obviously, I don't agree with that position, bob. I do not deny that there are some case plays which are inconsistent with the rules. I simply take the position that those case plays are wrong and that the people who wrote them did a poor job of interpreting the text. They eventually should be overturned. It is my opinion that the actual text always carries more weight than some play ruling because that's what the RULE is.
This is the way constitutional law works.  |
Ok, I'm jumping in a long way from the beginning of this conversation, but I would've thought NFHS case plays are no different than court rulings in law. The actual court rulings determine the "spirit and intent" of the written law, and in a lot of cases, expand upon it. Isn't it usually the case that the law is poorly written, and the court cases give guidance on how the law is to be interpreted? How many times do attorneys cite specific cases, rather than the actual law? Isn't this the reason for the NFHS case plays - to expand and explain the intent of the rule? If the Fed. decides they want a different interpretation, they will change the case play accordingly. Therefore, I would conclude case plays take precedence over any possibly unclear wording in the rule itself.