Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
My point, however, in answer to your next post, is that while the interp very obviously mentions team control, the leap to that interp from the rule is much smaller than the leap from that interp to another one that says the OP is a violation.
If one event can qualify for two things that must happen at different points in time (the interp) in one instance, why can't they happen in another?
|
I humbly suggest that we all put the one bogus interp behind us and do not mention it again rather that worrying about "If they said that it must mean that they also would say this if asked."
Let us not ask. Stick to the rule as we know it, and make the backcourt violation call, or in this case don't make it, accordingly.
And to anticipate the next question:
Have I decided to totally ignore the above referenced interp?
an emphatic
yes