backcourt question from Rulebox

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

I understand that. But it's very clear cut with a very clear application. It may be opposite what the rule says, however it covers 1 specific application of the rule. I don't see what the fuss it. It doesn't have to make sense but it's very clear cut.

It is

• a contradiction with the rule
• fundamentally wrong
• inconsistent with the way it has been called for decades
• introduces several ridiculous possibilities.