The problem is that the current ruling is too vague and it subjected to a wide range of interpretations.
Don’t get me wrong - I do agree with your interpretations. End of the day, it is about common sense.
But yet, here’s from a separate thread:
@60_Percent_C_Channel - sorry for quoting you over here. But it does highlight the issue about different interpretation of the rules.
@Micahy321 - for this case, personally I’d would have “passed” this goal clamp.
Reasons - there were really very limited ways in having an effective goal clamp and the team had replaced it with different parts.
But to some, it might not be good enough.
So that’s the reason why Foster and I have been asking - how much difference is enough (to be considered as not hole-counting)?