Double Foul During AP Throw-In

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Could you please state your source for the "true" desires and intents of the Rules Committees regarding rules. My understanding is that these are expressed in only two ways: 1) the language of the rules, themselves, and 2) model rules interpretations, which I thought are what comprise the Case Book.

Sometimes, recognizing the history of the rules helps to ascertain the intent of the changes. Also, when the changes are announced, they sometimes are accompanied by such explanations.

That said, if you want it, you'll have to research it yourself (unless Nevadaref or someone else wants to help). The fact that you're alone in your interpretation should be telling. If it's not, that is telling. And for the record, RefMag's opinion doesn't mean you're not alone.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Sometimes, recognizing the history of the rules helps to ascertain the intent of the changes. Also, when the changes are announced, they sometimes are accompanied by such explanations.

That said, if you want it, you'll have to research it yourself (unless Nevadaref or someone else wants to help). The fact that you're alone in your interpretation should be telling. If it's not, that is telling. And for the record, RefMag's opinion doesn't mean you're not alone.

Research it where? You know of its existence, and won't point me to it? Why would that be?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Research it where? You know of its existence, and won't point me to it? Why would that be?

I know it's there, but I don't know how to find it. That's why. Let's not assume nefarious motives.

[RandyBrown]

Don't be so sensitive, Snaq. I've searched for rules annotations, and never found them, so telling me to "research it" isn't helpful. I am seriously asking: Have you actually seen official rules annotations, or Committee minutes? If so, can you recall ANYTHING about where you saw them.

I've thought about it before, and I can't imagine why they would want to issue annotations, or minutes--everyone would just start interpreting those in various ways. They can say what they mean in the rules language, and give examples in the Case Book where they feel it necessary. Why would they fail to make the rules expressive of their intent if it could be done elsewhere? That makes no sense.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Don't be so sensitive, Snaq. I've searched for rules annotations, and never found them, so telling me to "research it" isn't helpful. I am seriously asking: Have you actually seen official rules annotations, or Committee minutes? If so, can you recall ANYTHING about where you saw them.

I've thought about it before, and I can't imagine why they would want to issue annotations, or minutes--everyone would just start interpreting those in various ways. They can say what they mean in the rules language, and give examples in the Case Book where they feel it necessary. Why would they fail to make the rules expressive of their intent if it could be done elsewhere? That makes no sense.

No, I haven't seen the minutes; I'm talking about their change announcements. That, and the history of the rule itself. Prior to this change, DFs always went to the AP.

Let me ask you again; if there's an IW in the middle of an APTI, how are you resuming play?

[Adam]

And as for "why would they fail..." Don't know why, but it happens all the time and they end up making clarifications later (some not announced).

Example. A few years ago, an unannounced editorial change change the penalty for a player catching a throw-in pass while having OOB status. Previously, it was a throwin for the opponent at the spot of the catch. The change made it a throw-in violation with the ensuing throw-in brought back to the original throw-in spot. It got discussed here, and within a year or two, another unannounced changed reverted it back to a simple OOB violation.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And as for "why would they fail..." Don't know why, but it happens all the time and they end up making clarifications later (some not announced).

Example. A few years ago, an unannounced editorial change change the penalty for a player catching a throw-in pass while having OOB status. Previously, it was a throwin for the opponent at the spot of the catch. The change made it a throw-in violation with the ensuing throw-in brought back to the original throw-in spot. It got discussed here, and within a year or two, another unannounced changed reverted it back to a simple OOB violation.

Exactly! But, that is not to say that while the rule was one way, the "true" intent was actually something different, and so we shouldn't mind that rule. I don't understand how you are tethering this to this thread's substantive question?

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And as for "why would they fail..." Don't know why, but it happens all the time and they end up making clarifications later (some not announced).

Example. A few years ago, an unannounced editorial change change the penalty for a player catching a throw-in pass while having OOB status. Previously, it was a throwin for the opponent at the spot of the catch. The change made it a throw-in violation with the ensuing throw-in brought back to the original throw-in spot. It got discussed here, and within a year or two, another unannounced changed reverted it back to a simple OOB violation.

By the way, I don't see how this is an example of a failure to express their intent. By what you describe, clearly their intent was not at issue. A subsequent Committee simply decided to rescind the rule change. Where is the failure to communicate their intent THAT COULD HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATED ELSEWHERE? Don't short-change me by ignoring the full context of what I write. [I'm not saying that as evilly as it appears.]