|
I don't think it is "outlandish" to say that the word "touching" requires one to actually be touching something to apply. I think that is, in fact, the actual definition of the word.
I would, with all respect, suggest that it is a considerably larger stretch to "interpret" 'touching' to mean 'touching or have touched in the past even if NOT touching now', since I don't think that is at all the definintion of the word in common usage.
Example: Right now I am touching my keyboard. If I remove my finger from the keybord, am I still touching it? I think not.
Absent some specific instruction from the rulebook or relevant interpretation from the rules committee, I don't see how we can presume that logic, reason, or common sense would suggest that we re-define a word to mean something almost exactly the opposite of what it actually means.
I would further suggest that if in fact the rules committee decides this is an important enough problem to warrant a "fix" (I cannot possibly imagine how it could be), they need to change the verbiage of the rule, since an interpretation that involves actually changing the definition of a commonly known word to mean almost the opposite of its actual meaning would be needlessly confusing.
I don't see why they could not, if they wished, simply adopt the basketball-type rule on this issue.
|