Law 24.10: No ball to over-ride Wide .... Can you justify it?
451574
Man its difficult but not impossible !!\nAnyways ...i think its unjust !
454755
As long as there are conflicting interest between individual impulses and the overall needs of the community, there will be laws. Laws set boundaries so that people can interact positively, causing minimum damage to each other. Whether it's following traffic laws (e.g. who gets to go first, where each car can drive in what direction, etc. to avoid accidents) to international trade (how much different currencies are worth, how much has to be paid for items, etc.), it is all about creating a benefit for the overall community so that we all can have better lives.
10187
No, to the best of my knowledge there is no rule that requires a player has to either have a minimum number of balls or is there a rule that limits the number of balls one can carry -- on the PGA tour or otherwise.
63500
I'd start calling the violations that they don't call like travelling.\n\nI'd make the pro court bigger (both longer and wider).\n\nI'd use the international key shape.\n\nI'd add in some international rules like allowing them to touch the ball in the cylinder after the ball hits the rim and the ability to grab the ball on an out of bounds on the side.\n\nI'd leave the rim at 10 feet.
58960
This is absolutely true.  My high school basketball coach demonstrated this to us when the team was struggling with making free throws.  I wish I had a picture to show you to confirm this, but you'll have to take my word for it.\n\nNote:  This is true with a regular sized ball.  Actually, if you're good at math, you can prove this by measuring the diameter of a regulation sized rim and comparing it against the diameter of a basketball :)  \n\nLastly, there is one URL which also states similar belief that 2 basketballs can fit in the rim at the same time.  See source below.\n\nHope this helps!  :)
750078
Subsequently, some countries experimented with eight balls an over. In 1922, the number of balls per over was changed from six to eight in Australia only. In 1924 the eight ball over was extended to New Zealand and in 1937 to South Africa. In England, the eight ball over was adopted experimentally for the 1939 season; the intention was to continue the experiment in 1940, but first-class cricket was suspended for the Second World War and when it resumed, English cricket reverted to the six ball over. The 1947 Laws of Cricket allowed six or eight balls depending on the conditions of play. Since the 1979/80 Australian and New Zealand seasons, the six ball over has been used worldwide and the most recent version of the Laws in 2000 only permits six ball overs.
703591
i could not agree more trigga1uk-if you own a vehicle then it is your responsibility to ensure all documentation is correct-and this is the view the magistrate should take. yes £20.000 a week is a ridiculous amount of money to be paid for booting a ball about but this should not make them immune to the law. bearing in mind that some players are paid in excess of £100.000 a week god only knows what they could do and then blame their agents!!!.
1108655
NOT NECESSARY.\nYOU MAY HIT IT BEFORE BOUNCE.\n\nANYHOW, MAXIMUM I BOUNCE ALLOWED TO RETURN BACK THE BALL.
1074425
I think one of the biggest mistakes we can make when writing laws is to assume that there is a one-size-fits-all answer for everything. Judges need elbow room to allow for variations…. the human factor.\n\nOn the flip side of this coin, people need to understand exactly what is and is not allowed and why. They have very little tolerance for laws that punish one person harshly for the same crime committed by another who gets a slap on the wrist.\n\nIn the end, what is best for those who are the subjects of the law? I would think we should err on the side of flexibility and give judges the lateral room they need to fix the punishment not just to the act, but also to the violator.\n\nSo… to answer your question… how subjective? I would give the weight of discretion, tipped to favor the judges and not to mandatory sentencing codes favored by obtuse politicians in marbled halls.
12015
The ball is considered "completely" in the endzone if it breaks the plane of the endzone. Therefore, if the ball was at all across the line, even just the tip of the ball, it is considered a safety.
557216
Because if you love the game, you trust the regulations and the league.  Like you trust the laws.  Can the laws be beaten or broken?  Yes, but would you trust and follow it?\n\nIf you really think your souce is correct, you should send your sources to MLB, to Congress, or other law department.  I believe it's a better way to make things better.  Otherwise, it's just a non-proven source.  Just like the magzine I read last week, about aliens would invade Earth in a month.
764718
Law of unintended consequences?
470249
I disagree. I my experince. Reason people break the rule is becuase they cant win any other way. Ponder this thow rules are ristrictions enacted and enforced by individuals or private comp. ect. laws are differrent. Laws are inacted by Legislative body or gov. entity. Now im going to get deep with you. No one can enact or enforce rules that conflict with laws set by the gov. body. So most of the time no one is really breaking any rule because they confict with gov. laws. most of the time
828397
The batsman does not get a run if a bowler bowls a wide.\nIt goes only to the team.\nIt does not even add to the bowler's figures. But he would have to bowl an extra ball.
995457
http://www.answers.com/topic/offside-law\n\nplz 10 pts
133306
a. it is not the speed you "must" go because it is a maximum safe limit, you can easily go 50 if the limit is 55.\nb. gives the highest speed you "should" go.  not "can" go because you can easily o faster that the speed limit but you should't.\nc. it is not there to say "hey go less than this or get a ticket." it is there to show you what the safest speed would be.
59646
"[The ball] shall weigh not less than five nor more than 5 1/4 ounces avoirdupois."