Before this thread goes too much further, I would like to make a recommendation.
Before anyone posts a suggested re-write of <G25>, they should be required to fully read through
this thread and
this thread. These threads address related discussions from last year. They contain numerous insights, suggestions, thoughts, and recommendations that were all considered when this years' version of <G25> was written.
These pages are all worth reviewing before we enter in to another discussion on this topic, for several reasons. First off, a lot of ideas have already been posted; we don't need to repeat information that is already out there. Second, it will be discovered that, based on events from this year, some ideas just will not work; we can skip over them and move on. But third, as many discovered last year, it will be seen that writing an effective, complete, acceptable, all-inclusive, and understandable rule that covers all possibilties and all situations without any possibility of misinterpretation is extrodinarily difficult.
In no way do I want to restrict discussion on this topic. But I do want to ask that as suggested rewrites are made, that the authors thoroughly read their rewrites before pressing the "Submit Reply" button. As you go through the submission, ask yourself "does this really improve the situation for ALL teams in ALL instances?" Too often, there is a temptation to modify a rule to fix one specific incident. But in the effort to correct that one situation, other unexpected problems are created. Those conditions are the ones against which we must be on the lookout. While everyone wants to improve the situation and create a better set of rules, you will find that it is very easy to accidently make things worse if the full set of implications of the new rule are not thought out carefully, thoroughly, and completely.
-dave