[jallerton]

As I understand it, a new version of the Laws is published every ten years or so.

It seems that, sometimes, footnotes are added to the existing Laws.

Is the purpose of these footnotes merely to clarify something in the original version of the Laws? Or can a footnote be used to change the original meaning?

[pran]

jallerton, on 2011-November-18, 16:24, said:

As I understand it, a new version of the Laws is published every ten years or so.

It seems that, sometimes, footnotes are added to the existing Laws.

Is the purpose of these footnotes merely to clarify something in the original version of the Laws? Or can a footnote be used to change the original meaning?

Footnotes have usually been issued as part of, or immediately after the regular law revisions in order to clarify a rule.

Only exceptionally has a footnote been added between regular revisions. The most infamous footnotes in recent years have probably been those that in several changing versions were added to, and really changed the now extinct Laws 61B and 63B (Defenders may not ask one another about possible revokes).

[bluejak]

They took the power to weight scores out at one time, and then issued a footnote that put it back in.

[blackshoe]

Sort of an aside, but my copies of TFLB do not have numbered footnotes. Both the WBF version and the ACBL version use asterisks. Yet some people apparently have a law book with numbered footnotes, and they refer to "footnote number <whatever>" as if we should all know what the heck they're talking about. A bit annoying that. What should be done about it?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-18, 23:16, said:

Sort of an aside, but my copies of TFLB do not have numbered footnotes. Both the WBF version and the ACBL version use asterisks. Yet some people apparently have a law book with numbered footnotes, and they refer to "footnote number <whatever>" as if we should all know what the heck they're talking about. A bit annoying that. What should be done about it?

WBFLC Laws of 1997 had numbered footnotes, we did not in our Norwegian translation.

I suggested for the 2007 translation that we should maintain the same footnote numbers as were assigned by WBFLC, only to discover that WBFLC had abandoned their footnote numbering

"What should be done about it?" - Be aware of the situation.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-November-18, 19:35, said:

They took the power to weight scores out at one time, and then issued a footnote that put it back in.

I was thinking of the various amendments to Laws 61B and 63B, and consequences of violations of those laws. As far as I can remember weighting of scores was never a theme in any of those footnotes?

[bluejak]

Look back over the years at Law 12C.

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-18, 23:16, said:

Sort of an aside, but my copies of TFLB do not have numbered footnotes. Both the WBF version and the ACBL version use asterisks. Yet some people apparently have a law book with numbered footnotes, and they refer to "footnote number <whatever>" as if we should all know what the heck they're talking about. A bit annoying that. What should be done about it?

There is a version with numbered footnotes (but not hyperlinks) on the EBU website here.

[blackshoe]

I've grabbed it, thanks.