Fed 7-5 "additional" yards

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I'm confused... are you saying they need an editorial change because 64,952 or 64,952 officials understand it, but you don't?

Yes, especially when it's clear the change would do no harm and would un-confuse at least 1 person who needs to know the rules. And it's clear from the responses in this thread that there was at least 1 person other than me who didn't understand, evidenced by what he wrote about its making no difference.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Yes, especially when it's clear the change would do no harm and would un-confuse at least 1 person who needs to know the rules. And it's clear from the responses in this thread that there was at least 1 person other than me who didn't understand, evidenced by what he wrote about its making no difference.

Wow. Quite an ego you've got there, sir.

Instead of going through the process of making an editorial change to the book to accommodate a single person who "needs to know the rules", perhaps it would be simpler if that one person attend even a single clinic.

Or better yet, ask here - and ACCEPT THE ANSWER YOU'RE GIVEN. You aren't STILL confused, right? So that worked. Now we can all move on.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Wow. Quite an ego you've got there, sir.

Instead of going through the process of making an editorial change to the book to accommodate a single person who "needs to know the rules", perhaps it would be simpler if that one person attend even a single clinic.

Or better yet, ask here - and ACCEPT THE ANSWER YOU'RE GIVEN. You aren't STILL confused, right? So that worked. Now we can all move on.

Don't be a jerk. Robert's right. The rule is ambiguous. It wouldn't take more than a word or two to make it unambiguous. Writing clearly and concisely is a difficult skill and this rule isn't up to the mark.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Wow. Quite an ego you've got there, sir.

Instead of going through the process of making an editorial change to the book to accommodate a single person who "needs to know the rules", perhaps it would be simpler if that one person attend even a single clinic.

Or better yet, ask here - and ACCEPT THE ANSWER YOU'RE GIVEN. You aren't STILL confused, right? So that worked. Now we can all move on.

Oh, I accept this answer. But what about the next question? Or the next person that has this question? Good rules writing tries to hammer these things out whenever they come up. There's no reason not to address every single one that's raised that way.

Indeed, it appears I, or somebody with the exact same question, got NCAA some years ago to fix a problem that'd existed in the wording of provisions to determine who was on team A's line of scrimmage. They had in one place written "[various body parts] or body", which implied that "body" alone was meant not to include those parts, and elsewhere nearby wrote "body" alone where they did mean to include all parts. I asked the editor a question, got an answer, and sure enough, about 3 years later they fixed that ambiguity. It pays to ask, and it pays to complain.

[JRutledge]

This is why Robert there is a "Spirit of the Rule" portion of most rulebooks. Not every situation is going to be clearly stated and accepted if you are trying to find nits in every word or statement.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is why Robert there is a "Spirit of the Rule" portion of most rulebooks. Not every situation is going to be clearly stated and accepted if you are trying to find nits in every word or statement.

Sure, but hardly any of them are resolved by the presumed spirit of the rule either -- this one, for instance.