Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
No it doesn't. The rules you're referring to address specific situations with specific intents in mind (even if the intents are not explicity stated in the rule). They were never meant to be absolutes (few rules are). There are usually exceptional situations where the right thing to do is to not follow the letter of the rule but the spirit.
|
So if I stated that this new case play addresses THE SPECIFIC SITUATION when a player is FOULED, INJURED, AND DUE FTs and states that when all of those criteria are met that then and only then may an otherwise ineligible substitute return immediately and attempt those FTs, would I be correct?
In other words what the NFHS just wrote is a very specific ruling which we cannot expand to any other situation no matter what common elements they may share. Afterall, that is the way that you have been reasoning throughout this entire thread.