[deecee]

bktball - I appreciate your flippant response. I'm just trying to figure out why, when there is an explicit ruling, what does a discussion solve?

Will any answer we come up with change anything? I doubt it, it will just create possible confusion as someone who comes on and reads the forum could misapply a rule (that of course is a bit contradictory) that has an explicit ruling based on what happens.

I'm just curios what conclusion we can come up with on this forum that would trump the ruling in the casebook to a very specific set of circumstances whether or not they are contradictory or not is besides the point.

In once case they address double T's for administrative purposes and in the other they address double T's on players.

I'm just trying to keep the facts clear whereas any possible discussion here would only lead to hypothetical solutions and conjecture as the facts here don't leave much wiggle room. Just what I gathered from reading these 2 case plays.

And to your point bktball, I agree that it would be "nice" for them to be consistent and pick one way or another. But until that happens it looks like we have pretty clear direction here, as convoluted and muddy as it may be.