Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
I must say that you NOW have a decent point.
|
Come on, gimme a little more credit than that. I had a decent point all along. You just didn't see the specific wording of 4-42-5c until I pointed it out.
Quote:
|
I was going by what I knew from the past, however, I've just gone and checked the 2007-08 rules book and compared it to the 2008-09 version and found that 6-4-5 was altered as well as the announced editorial change to 4-42-5. The words "throw-in violation" in 4-42-5 are brand new.
|
Honestly, I didn't realize this was a recent change. If I hadn't looked it up, I would've answered the same way you did. But for some reason, I decided to find the precise citation.
Quote:
|
I would seriously doubt that this editorial change was intended to change the existing rule. Afterall, it was only an editorial change
|
I would agree. But the law of unintended consequences kicks in here. . .
Quote:
|
These unannounced changes are unacceptable and make proper enforcement difficult for officials.
|
I would agree with this also. Too many unannounced changes, and "editorial" changes that actually alter the rule.