Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
I understand completely the basic purpose of the rule. I've even typed it out 2 or 3 times just in this thread. But the actual rule is explicitly different from what is intended. ...
We'd all know that they meant the rule to be the same, because there's the case play. But the rule doesn't say what they meant it to say. It directly contradicts the case play. 5-2-1 is the same situation. We all know what it intends. But what it says is distinctly different.
|
Or, many are failing to acknowledge that there is a simple, basic assumption that is implied that the writers of the rule felt was so obvious that it was not necessary to include it.
They gave us a new rule with an explanation of what it was for and the situation for which it was intended. They kept it short and concise expecting that officials were sufficiently intelligent to know how to apply it properly. Now we have a contingent that insists that the rule doesn't mean what they writers said it meant and are trying to apply it in a place it was never intended for.
I'm going to trust the writers of the rule and not try to impart some alternative meaning just because their word choice doesn't exhaustively cover all the weird convolutions that some can come up with.