Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
I am not following you. What ramifications are you worried about or what is changed by a new rule? I might be like others here, not sure what has changed or what makes this illegal?
|
What's changed is that Fed is now saying that in the case described, don't look for whether contact occurred before or after the ball left the FBZ, just deem it legal or illegal as specified. (This is not brand new thinking. Rulings from state ***'ns saying the same thing were brought up here & elsewhere last year. At least one state ***'n adopted a different ruling in that case, and most said nothing.)
So what I'm saying is, if the conditions are altered a little as I wrote above, do you try to adapt that case ruling to the altered conditions, or do you treat the case ruling as sui generis and just go by the rule?
I have trouble understanding why you have trouble understanding what I'm asking.