Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
I understand the logic that Camron is advocating and could easily be convinced to rewrite the rule to make Camron's position the rule and thereby repealing the current rules interpretation.
|
The rule doesn't need to be rewritten to support what I advocate. It already does...it references before and after with respect to the ball gaining backcourt status.
It would need to be rewritten only so that the interpretation doesn't turn thousands of years of mathematics upside down. Can you name a number that is both less than 0 and greater than 0? That is what it would take to make the interpretation agree with the rule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
That said, we have a Rule that can be ambiguous at best, a Rules Committee's philosophy that is over fifty years old, and a Rules Interpretation that supports the Rules Committee's philosophy.
|
Maybe the rule was once written to support that interpretation...I don't have books published in papyrus. If it was, it has long since been changed to its current form which no longer supports that interpretation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Camron, if you want to write and rule that eliminates any confusion and overturns the current Rules Interpretation I am all for it and will be happy to contact the "big wigs" that I know in and effort to change it.
MTD, Sr.
|
I propose the rule as currently written. It is sufficiently clear.