3 second question

[tref]

I'm quite aware of that fact...

I'm just pointing out that the thought process of the Committee was not to affect anything other than team control on throw-ins for fouling purposes. Although the wording of the new rule doesnt support their Intent & Purpose of this rule.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tref

I'm quite aware of that fact...

I'm just pointing out that the thought process of the Committee was not to affect anything other than team control on throw-ins for fouling purposes. Although the wording of the new rule doesnt support their Intent & Purpose of this rule.

And THIS is where we get to the topic of the INTENT of the rule. No matter what the exact words may say, we have their expressed intent that these other areas are to be unaffected. So, if the new wording of the rule seems to suggest the back court violation scenarios have changed, they really haven't according to their intent.

(Translation: They screwed up the wording of the rule and are fudging it under the intent clause).

[Toren]

Thanks again for the discussion. I'm glad we have clarification on this issue.