On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Luis Ressel wrote:
> But I'll bet that this isn't the first time something like this has
> been brought up; aren't there any previous judgements about similar
> issues?
The precedent for a time limit is that you "commit the act"
the instant the time limit expires. Afterwards, it can be
said you (past tense) committed the act (and can be punished).
I *think* there's a precedent for events in general; e.g. "if
an event happens on the cusp of two time periods, is it in one
time period or the other (or neither)?" But for the life of me,
can't remember answer or context.
The clause itself is odd anyway, because it links a SHALL to
what happens in that same week (the Referee won't know if
there were no violations in the week until it's too late).
-G.
