Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder
There's the difference right there. You WANT something from the rules. The rest of us have no such desire to make the rules what we want them to be. Your interp does not satisfy anything at all, as you have to change the words to make the rule mean what you WANT it to mean (is touching becomes has touched) or you have to invent a concept not part of football's rules to fit what you WANT into the rules. Either is simply bad officiating.
Changing the words in a sentence is not "interpreting" - it's changing.
Inventing a concept that doesn't exist at all in the book is not "interpreting" - it's inventing.
|
A word of general advice, Mike, when you speak for yourself alone, you are on a lot firmer ground. I can tell you for absolute sure, you are not competent to tell me what I'm thinking, or have any idea what I want. Based on your analysis, you are also not competent to lecture me about rules or rule concepts.
You do what you think is right, and I'll continue to do what I think is correct and with some luck we'll both survive without too much agita.