[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rwest

You are leaving out a third possibility. It is also possible that the rules committee sees a hole in the rule or has changed the official interpretation. We don't know what goes on in these meetings. It could be as some suggest that they don't know the rule.

Actually, I do have some access to what goes on. For example, the recent change in FT mechanics was not even discussed at their meeting. After the meeting, the announcement of the changes was released and that change was a surprise to several members of the committee.

It wouldn't be a surprise if an interpretation made it in without full review.

Originally Posted by rwest

I find that hard to believe because it is not a hard rule to understand. I believe some are assuming a level of incompetence on the rules committee. I also believe that some are assuming that a single person wrote this interp. I for one would like to know a little more about the process before I start making these assumptions. It maybe that the rules committee voted on this interp and that it is the consensus of the committee.

That is what it should be but I have pretty good information that it isn't always working that way.

Originally Posted by rwest

I believe we all agree this is a bad ruling. However some of use seem to believe in following the authority that is placed over us. Others, seem to believe that they can disregard an official interp because it doesn't agree with their interpretation of the rulebook.

We all seem to have the same interpretation of the back court rule. However, that is not the case in all instances. That's why we have so much fun debating rules; because at times we have a different interp even after reading the same rules and case plays.

So Camron, if you and I have a different interpretation of a rule and there is an official interpretation that directly addresses our differences, can I disregard it because it doesn't agree with my interp?

The problem is that there are two sources on what the ruling should be...and they disagree.

If the rule book were changed to say it was a violation for the team in control of the ball to cause the ball to gain BC status and then be the first to touch the ball, I'd agree, with the interp, but it doesn't.

The rule as written isn't complicated. Last to touch BEFORE is not ambiguous. There is no other way to interpret BEFORE.

Originally Posted by rwest

If we can assert our interpretation over the rules committee then we are going down a slippery slope. Where will it end? I can simply say in any argument that your interpretation is wrong and mine is correct. I can then disregard any official interp that disagrees with my interp. I don't think we want to go there.

This is not the case of a ruling we don't like but the case of a ruling that doesn't agree with the rule that is behind it.

If they want to change the rule to say something like....

It is a violation for the team in control of the ball to cause the ball to gain BC status and then be the first to touch the ball.

then change the rule, don't do it by issuing a case play that says the rule means something different than it says.