Ball lodged in glove: FED interpretation

[Kaliix]

Carl,
Believe it or not, I do understand that the written rules cannot cover every conceivable play and/or situation.

It just seems to me that the people who write the rules should be trying to write them so that they are clear, unambiguous and as complete as possible. In writing the rules, one should hope that they need as little further explanation as possible. There will likely need to be casebook examples for illustration purposes, but those cases should only illustrate, not interpret, if at all possible.

It seems like the rules writers are content with their ambiguous attempts at writing rules and are content to need further interpretations and countless case book illustrations to further clarify their poorly worded rules. That should be the exception not the rule. They should strive for clarity and completeness and not accept less.

Her point, my point: You cannot write a rule to cover every event; you cannot explain every rule and still keep the rule book manageable