The Strange Case Of The Vanishing Casebook Play ...

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Because some specific interpretations (i.e., 10.6.1 Situation E), often about odd, or rare situations, may not be perfectly or sufficiently explained by rule language alone. While rule language may be sometimes ambiguous, interpretations are almost never ambiguous. Many highly regarded and very competent Forum members have logically and rationally cherry-picked rule language to contradict the interpretation of 10.6.1 Situation E, claiming it was an illegal blocking foul.

Telling the committee that "highly respected forum members" might be able to nit-pick the rule would not get much traction from me if I were on the committee. I would want the person presenting to specifically point out where the contradiction is with the current rule verbiage.

And again with POEs, they are points of emphasis not interpretations or new rules or case plays. They literally mean that a specific rule is a "point of emphasis" for the rules committee.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk