Free Throw Shooter

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I humbly submit (again) that this not a case of setting a rule aside but rather a case of considering the INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES. What is the intent and purpose of 3-3-4? We might speculate and theorize on this for an extended period of time, but would any reasonable person think that the intent was to make a team play with 4 players for a few seconds following an injury?

It is not even the intent and purpose that is at issue. There was a hole in the rules where there was no specific solution. The NF Interpreter can come up with and interpretations that he or she sees fit to rectify the situation. This happens all the time in other sports when the rules clearly do not cover a situation, these people at the NF either clarify the situation or the state in which you live comes up with an interpretation to cover that obvious hole. I hate to bring other sports into this discussion, but this happen in football several times when there were new rules put into place and the NF did not think of the other holes they created. When it was brought to the NF's attention, they clarified their purpose of the rules and closed a hole. Then it took a year or so later for the actual rules to be changed to clearly define their intent much clearer.

The NF is not perfect and that is why there is an “interpreter” to cover these situations. Now I do not expect the rules to change to cover this situation, but for someone to say the NF is setting aside current rules on situations like this, well I will be nice and leave it alone.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is not even the intent and purpose that is at issue. There was a hole in the rules where there was no specific solution. The NF Interpreter can come up with and interpretations that he or she sees fit to rectify the situation. ....


The NF is not perfect and that is why there is an “interpreter” to cover these situations. Now I do not expect the rules to change to cover this situation, but for someone to say the NF is setting aside current rules on situations like this, well I will be nice and leave it alone.

Peace

(agreeing with you)
But if people would try to understand the intent and purpose of the rules and try to apply them with that understanding and not get so stuck on the letter of the rule, we wouldn't need so many interpretations. As I repeatedly maintain, knowing the intent of the rule is just as important as knowing the rule. They can never write every possible scenario into the book, but if you understand (not just know) the rules, they don't need to.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

(agreeing with you)
But if people would try to understand the intent and purpose of the rules and try to apply them with that understanding and not get so stuck on the letter of the rule, we wouldn't need so many interpretations. As I repeatedly maintain, knowing the intent of the rule is just as important as knowing the rule. They can never write every possible scenario into the book, but if you understand (not just know) the rules, they don't need to.

I agree with you on your last statements as well. Also that is why there are State and NF Rule Interpreters in the first place. And if we did not have them, we would have more confusion. Now there has been a clarification and most of us will move on. Some still think they have to be right because they do not know any other way to do things.

Peace