Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
That would involve acknowledging the discrepancy.
In the mean time, I won't be making this call because:
1. It's contrary to the rule.
2. It's not the expected call on this play.
|
It would acknowledge that there maybe discrepancies and when there are here is the order of precedence. They could just make a blanket statement. I understand your view point on this particular rule. However, you are missing my point. When an official interpretation comes out after the books have been published, how can we assume that they made a bad ruling? How can we assume that they didn't realize the interpretation was contrary to the rule? It's my position that the Official Rules Interpretation takes precedence over the rule book and case plays. It's a way for them to correct mistakes in the rule book or case book without repubishing the books. We are not on the rules committee so we can't assume the interpretation is not what they wanted just because it disagrees with the rule book.
And, for the record, I don't like the interpretation either. It is contrary to logic, in my opinion. However, I do believe this is what the rules committee wants even though the rule book is written contrary to the interp.