Quote:
Originally posted by AK ref SE
Law and Editorial Comments-
There are still laws on the books in many states and towns that have never been taken off the books....that are still there, but because of the changing times they are never called into question. Some were back in the horse and buggy day( I was not around) and I did not call Basketball back in 1963- Did not even know how to tie my shoes back them.
So Editorial Comments from previous years if they wanted them enforced as they were 40 years ago...they would be in the rules...or the rule book should have an appendix with every years Editorial Comments.
AK ref SE
|
You are missing the point. Prior to the 1963-64 season, the rules stated specificially that the game officials could stop the game or withhold the ball from being made live so that a player could tie his/her shoes. Starting with the 1963-64 season that provision was deliberately deleted from the rules by the Rules Committee because the Rules Committee did not want the officials to stop the game or withhold the ball from being made live. The Rules Committee's Editorial Comment gave the reason for deleting the provision from the rules. The provision was not deleted just to make the Rules Book shorter but to change the rules.
Your argument that the deletion was made forty years ago is not defensible. Currently, it is a violation to goaltend a free throw. If the violation is by B1 at an Team A's basket, the penalty is to award a point to Team A, charge B1 with a technical foul, and award Team A two free throws plus the possession of the ball for a throw-in after the free throws at the division line opposite the scorer's table. Using your logic, if the Rules Committee decided to delete the technical foul penalty provision from the rules, and used an Editorial Comment to bring the deletion of the provision to everybody's attention, but then never never made a comment in subsequent Rules Books, forty years from now, an offical could charge a player with a technical foul for goaltending a free throw because the Rules Committee hasn't commented on it in the past forty years.