[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Like I said, you may find it petty. It was merely a request to conform with the prevailing method used here if you're going to engage in elongated discussions.

I didn't consider it petty, but wondered if worth the effort. I can see that it has its uses. "Thanks" to you and APG for the lessons.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Frankly, until we can establish agreement on this point, I'm not sure it's worth any more discussion.

It does appear to be at the heart of it, I agree.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Really? Mutually exclusive? Yet you messed up a very basic concept by trying to use 4-36-2c when an interruption occurs during a throw-in, which is clearly a 4-36-2b issue. . . . without a way of prioritizing the articles, there is no consistent way of deciding whether to use 2b or 2c during a throw-in. Any interruption during a throw-in, by definition, also occurs when there is no team control. 4-12-6

You are definitely begging the question. Approach the issue without preconception, as evidenced by, "you messed up a very basic concept". Your use of "priority" is further evidence of preconception.

The Article's drafters specified no particular order or hierarchy for parts a, b, and c. It is just a simple list. We could scramble the list's identifying letters, and it would make no difference to application or meaning. The drafters easily could have (and no doubt would have) included a hierarchy if they intended one. No where does it say, if b, then not c, as you suggested in a previous post. Can we agree on that? If not, indicate the word or words that you think direct you to consider the parts in a particular hierarchical order. Don't introduce our play situation in some way, here; rely on the language as written. If we agree so far, then all parts are theoretically relevant to any given play situation, simultaneously. According to the language, then, nothing proscribes c from applying merely because b could also be construed to apply. This is where I say you depart from the language. In TI situations, you say that if b can be construed to apply, c must then be disregarded.

So far, in your play situations that you have been testing my interpretation of Article 2 with, you say I have gotten the outcomes correct, but by incorrect means. My means (a strict adherence to the language) gets me the correct answers on your test situations, and then also squares me with Referee Magazine, Scrapper, and Nevada in Bob Jenkins' play situation. If there is an inconsistency, it appears to be with your means--unless you have gone back to Jurassic times. [Could not resist]