Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyBrown
If you want me to respond to this intelligently, you are going to have to give me more or better information. Originally, you claimed there was a change in penalty, and I assumed that meant a rule change. Going with what you have given me, it still seems clear that their intent, as expressed in this editorial remark, was understood by you, and others, but that you didn't like it. Are you saying they thought a throw-in provision was being applied incorrectly by some or many, and so they "clarified", only to have a subsequent Committee re-clarify?
Responses to your other posts will take more time than I have left, so late tonight, hopefully.
|
Okay, first, while I certainly want to communicate in a way you can understand what I'm saying, I really couldn't care less whether you respond intelligently. That part is up to you.
I'm simply providing an example of a time when the intent of the rules committee was not expressed in the rule itself.
Situation: A1, during a throw-in along his FC endline, throws a pass to A2, standing near the FC sideline. Right before he catches it, his right foot steps OOB.
The old rule was, as it is now, that the throwin would be where he went OOB. Without so much as an announcement, let alone an explanation, they moved the violation from 9-3 to 9-2; making the penalty a throw-in at the spot of the original throw-in. Then, again without an announcement or explanation, they moved it back to 9-3 (9-3-2 to be precise). The assumption (which is what we were left to make) was that their intent all along was to have this be a normal OOB violation rather than a throw-in violation; in spite of what the rule said.
9-9-3 (BC exception) was a different issue altogether, although similar in that their intent was not spelled out in the rule. Even now, the way the rule is written, it leaves room for discussion. That discussion is cut short by the case play, however. Their intent all along was that the items in parentheses were all inclusive, and other moments without team control did not get the "exception".