|
Is it really the language of the rule that's insane, or just the nit-picking, ridiculous interpretations that some individuals insist on applying to the language of the rule?
Is use of a hard-count drawing the defense into the NZ a foul, or "might" it be foul depending on how the hard count is delivered and what body language might be added to the delivery? Do you really need the word "clearly" to determine whether "an act was intended to cause an opponent to commit a foul"?
Why are things that have been understood and accepted for 40,50 or more years suddenly subject to so much confusion, usually because some decideds that a word, or phrase, that's been in place for decades may also be subject to a new interpretation.
No two plays, or actions, are exactly alike and our role is to understand what the rules are and what they are intended to regulate and whether whatever action we are looking at violates, or not, what a rule is in place to guard against, or permit.
Do gnats actually have eyelashes, and if so, why should I care?
|