Are you wondering why they didn't use your wording? I mean- you actually seem very convinced of and passionate about this so I assume you've given this a lot of thought. You must think they were actually very inept to not include in the rule an explanation of the difference between the ball being assumed to actually not be frozen and being assumed to not be frozen when it's actually frozen. Do think there is a major failure in their explanatory powers here?
No, I don't wonder why they didn't use my changed wording. If they did use that changed wording, it would support your argument. I only included it because you seem to fail to understand that fouls occur not on what is assumed to have happened, but what has happened. Fouls are called on what is assumed to have happened. Because the original wording is used my interpretation is the correct one.
Actually, I think you're assuming that they never thought of the distinction and simply assumed that there was no distinction in actuality. But actually there is and maybe they should include them in the rules, assuming that they're willing to actually consider your suggestions. Maybe I can track down an e-mail address for you. Assuming you actually want to pursue this discussion any further with someone who can really make the rules better. Really.
Umm...I like the rules the way they are. It is you who is trying to stretch the rules of when a foul occurs to assumption. Maybe you should be the one making emails to get the rules changed.
Last edited: