After reading this entire thread I'm undecided which way I lean, however I do agree with the absolutes of following the rule book (which is why we have it to take the decisions of what is fair out of our hands), however I am intrigued as to how those who claim the rules to be the absolute final answer to interrupt things such as rule 4.19.11 (multiple fouls)?
I realize you can argue the "approximately" factor, however what is the reasoning for having the rule in there if we are never going to call it? If by definition we followed the rules strictly by what they say then why not more multiple fouls?
Really I am curious as to what you all have to say, so I'll sit back and enjoy your comments......I don't need the last word!
Tue Nov 17, 2009, 05:05pm
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode
