... but some people are ready to jump on any statement that is not completely explained.
Bill,
There is a reason for this. In this avocation (business, for some), we must be correct, especially with our understanding of the rules. We will all make errors on the field, but those errors are only forgivable if they are due to bad viewing angles (despite being in correct prescribed positions) or something simply not being observed (even 8 guys don't see everything). Errors due to incorrect or incomplete understanding of the rules are not forgivable, and that is how it should be. We accept that (well, I do, anyway). So, when we are discussing situations involving rules - especially in forums such as this - we can not afford to leave folks with incorrect information. If a true first-year guy saw your original comment, at best, he would be confused; at worst he'd have an incorrect understanding of the rule. That's why some of us with not only considerable on-field experience, but considerable experience in teaching/training will call out misleading information. I've been called out (which should be no surprise to anybody). And that's the way it should be. I don't take offense. I learn, and continue to try to get better.
"What ifs" involving balloons, flying saucers, etc., indeed, are frivolous. But, as we have seen over the years, some "what ifs" involving players and/or the ball actually happen, occasionally exposing gaps in the rules. When we can identify a gap in the rules before it becomes a controversy, we need to be able to alert the rulesmakers, so, they can, perhaps, close those gaps ahead of any potential issue. I am fairly certain that this forum directly contributed to expansion of the new fair catch rule to include catches made after an invalid signal, after people asked, "what if...," shortly after the 2018 proposed rule changes were first published. The rulesmakers are not immune to the "can't see the forest for trees" syndrome, and don't always consider all reasonable scenarios, let alone unreasonable - but possible - scenarios. IMHO, the mistake the rulesmakers make is not involving as many persons as possible in vetting these new rules. If they were to do so, they just might find that they are able to write new rules adequately on the first go-round.
Personally, I welcome well considered "odd scenarios" that may not be specifically covered by the rules.
If we each knew the rules perfectly, and had all the solutions to all situations, what would be the point of forums such as this?
Hmmm. Indeed.
What if we all knew the rules perfectly?
Robert
