Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire
By the literal reading of the rule, yes.
Yes, that's why I said it's unenforceable.
I find trying to read the minds of the rule committee to be an exercise in futility. I will readily agree with you that they often don't want the rules enforced the way they write them.
|
Most rules are not literal. Most rules are written and then there interpretations are there to suggest how we enforce or apply the rules. And it it is unenforceable, why would anyone suggest that this is the rule if someone claims you cannot enforce this consistently?
We cannot even have the NF agree on their interpretations about backcourt violation or what their language means. But the same people that complain about this issue, are the same people wanting to stick with an interpretation.
Peace