Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo-Money
I guess I can't go wrong with either ruling since no one can come to the conclusion whether it's back court or not.
|
Only one ruling makes any sense and it isn't the one in the interpretation. There are several examples where the interpretation is simply illogical and inconsistent with both the clearly written rule how the game is played and had been called for decades. The interpretation was simply pulled out of thin air by someone on the committee after they had too many drinks one night and it got through because no one was paying attention. If that was what they really wanted, they would have reworded the rule so it didn't contradict. The only reason it hasn't been retracted is that they hope it fades away quietly without having to admit it was a screw up....sort of like that ridiculous IAABO interpretation we discusses a month or so ago.