The problem is not the rule, it's that some people insist on reading whatever is written to suggest whatever thay want, that's not intended by the rule.
No, the problem is that some officials want to interpret things the way things they think SHOULD be, instead of what is actually written. Too many officials have "interpreted" this as a live ball foul. This proposed rule change fixes that current misinterpretation.
If a foul BEGINS when the ball is alive, it's a live ball foul (holding, face mask, BIB, whatever).
The reason those are live ball fouls are because they are fouls AS SOON AS they occur, not when the play ends. That's why a HCT is different: BY DEFINITION, it's not a foul until the play ends. The rule was even rewritten this year to specifically include HCTs that occur AFTER the runner is out of bounds or has scored. Without this proposal, how can you possibly think it's currently a live ball foul?
If the ball becomes dead BEFORE the foul begins, it's a dead ball foul.(late hit OOB, face mask in a pile up, a lot of really stupid things)
True, because they weren't fouls until the ball was dead, just like a HCT. Currently a HCT isn't a foul until the player is tackled. It's not a foul to grab the collar and pull a runner, it's a foul to do so and TACKLE him. It's not a foul until he's tackled, which means it's not a foul until the ball is dead.
It's usually not officials who spend all their time trying to twist the words used in creating a rule to squeeze something that was never intended into an interpretation.
No, it's simply officials that decide they can interpret the rules they way they want them to be, not the way they are written.
It's not rocket science because it's not supposed to be.
No, but they are rules, not suggestions. You don't get to make up your own version of them just because you wear the striped shirt and the silly pants.
I don't understand your opposition, they are trying to fix the rule to be enforced the way you WANT it to be enforced.