Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
He was referring to this post, I think:
Why he picked on this, I don't know. But I do agree it's not just outside the intent of the rule, but it's also a difficult stretch of the rule itself. Once the HC is DQd, he doesn't become part of the bench subject to the AC's control.
|
I see, but my point was why would we give an indirect to an assistant? That it didn't add any value and only complicated the issue.
Seems we're all on the same page, apparently Nevada didn't like my wording.