[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought sure I'd get some support on this, which is why I posted in the first place. I'm truly surprised so many here are not only unfamiliar with the rules, but are further unable to recognize the mistake the floorman made after I CITE the specific rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you're lacking on support. I think you're lacking on a full understanding of the context of not only the rule (as stated in Robert's rules, a text which I fully subscribe to as being the "best"), but the context of which the "rule" is commonly accepted as and interpreted as by the majority of persons in the poker world today (esp. floorpersons). As I already said, the "rule" may be one thing, and the "reason for the rule" may be yet another, but the common interpretation of the rule in today's poker world is yet another thing altogether. Each must be distinguished and dealt with separately. The truly saavy player (or floorman) must understand all aspects of what's at stake here, and what exactly happened, and how exactly to interpret it.

Overall, it's been a good thread for thinking about this type of situation tho, thanks for all who responded and all your thoughts.

al