Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
It was an editorial clarification, not a change in the rule....which means the "rule" was always that way before but enough people didn't understand it so they "clarified" it, not changed it. The additional words make it "clear" that touching outside the spot is (and always has been) considered to be leaving the spot.
|
I'm going to disagree. This was not a clarification of the rule. It was a change in the rule to make it what had been intended. The rule as previously written was not ambiguous. It was very clear that the violation was caused by the FOOT breaking the plane.
The rule was substantially changed, although it was changed through "editorial" process. This is a practice that is, IMHO, regrettable; and has been used too frequently in recent years.