Incorrect NFHS Correction

[MJT]

Grant, you'd better change the location of the invalid FC signal in your above post to not confuse people. You put it at the 14 and it should be at the 20.

I think the fact that this case play shows the result of the play did include PSK should indicate to us that although the "possession" definition is not worded the best, as Bob pointed out, we can figure out how #5 in the PSK rules is to be interpretted.

[grantsrc]

Originally Posted by MJT

Grant, you'd better change the location of the invalid FC signal in your above post to not confuse people. You put it at the 14 and it should be at the 20.

I think the fact that this case play shows the result of the play did include PSK should indicate to us that although the "possession" definition is not worded the best, as Bob pointed out, we can figure out how #5 in the PSK rules is to be interpretted.

The location in my play was from the '06 case book and has been corrected in this year's changes.

So bottom line is, PSK should apply here even though we have no rules support to justify so? We do have a case book play, which is a step in the right direction, but if this is the direction the Fed wants to head, shouldn't they ammend the part in rule two that I posted above? That way we have the rules support too.