Jeff Van Gundy on "Flopping"

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

No, it means once you have my interpretation you should have a clear and concise ruling to show that I'm wrong. But you don't. It doesn't cut both ways because I never said your interp was wrong. I have an interp and you have absolutely nothing you can point to to say it is wrong. Unlike some folks here I have the ability to realize that just because someone disagrees with me it doesn't mean they are wrong, or that they are lazy, or they're dumb, that they are a coward.

If you're implying that's what I believe, you're dead wrong. I don't believe any of those things about you.

Here's what I see you're forgetting, though. Citations are not limited to the rule and case books. In absence of anything noteworthy there, then we have to go back to the origin of definitions -- the dictionary.

While there's nothing in the rule and case books that contradicts your claim, there's also nothing that substantiates it, either. So, we simply have to look at the words in the rule. What do they mean?

In a nutshell, "faking" is defined as tricking, deceiving, or simulating. That's all it takes to break the rule. Contact isn't mentioned at all, and is, therefore, irrelevant.