6-3-10-c - A bummer of a rule change

[ElvisLives]

6-3-10-c Editorial change is actually a rule change. And a real bummer. Who's idea was this? Dang. Now I can't tell the story of a punter on a former WAC team that 'faked' the kick, and attempted to advance the ball beyond the line-to-gain. He got to a point about 1/2 yard beyond the NZ when he saw that he wouldn't make it, so he quickly stepped back to a point - with both feet - within/behind the NZ, and punted the ball. Perfectly legal, and a great 'heads-up' play.
Rats. Can't use that as a good example any more. I wonder why they made this change. Was this causing some kind of problem? This IS FOOTball, after all.
I'm bummed.

[dammitbobby]

disregard...  I didn't realize my digital copy of the 2022 rulebook somehow got renamed to 2023, I couldn't see where you were seeing changes.  Carry on.

[bossman72]

6-3-10-c Editorial change is actually a rule change. And a real bummer. Who's idea was this? Dang. Now I can't tell the story of a punter on a former WAC team that 'faked' the kick, and attempted to advance the ball beyond the line-to-gain. He got to a point about 1/2 yard beyond the NZ when he saw that he wouldn't make it, so he quickly stepped back to a point - with both feet - within/behind the NZ, and punted the ball. Perfectly legal, and a great 'heads-up' play.
Rats. Can't use that as a good example any more. I wonder why they made this change. Was this causing some kind of problem? This IS FOOTball, after all.
I'm bummed.

Probably to be consistent with the passer being beyond the line.  Never made sense to me why would one action be ok to do but not the other.