I think that would be a worse rule. The people who wrote the rule presumably do to.
You have more clearly revealed your agenda though. You think no returner should ever be able to call a footfault in an unofficiated match. This is clearly not consistent with the actual rules, so you twist your 'interpretation' of this rule in such a way so that the end effect is the same as your made up rule, not because this is an actual logical interpretation of the real rule, but because it's more consistent with what you think the rule should be.
The problem is that your interpretation doesn't make sense. I'd love to see you actually address this question, instead of ignoring it:
Originally Posted by dcdoorknob
Under your apparent interpretation, why would there be a rule that effectively says "Someone can clearly and obviously break this rule, and not be able to be legitimately be called on it, as long as they didn't really mean to do it." ?
This whole thing is still not very useful or productive though. I'm going to belatedly take my own advice and stop posting here now, I've said what I have to say, and I don't see how continuing would be in any way productive (not that any of it was productive to start with). Have a nice rest of the thread.