Isn't it obvious?

[bulbasnore]

There were a couple of good meta-rulings in the Sept 22 Rules team logs, but I'll focus on the obvious one in this update:

Q. Could I play a trainer if it's obvious that it will have no effect (i.e. Life Herb on a Pokémon without any damage and with no Special Conditions on it)?
A. No, you cannot play a card if it is obvious that you cannot do what the card is supposed to do at that moment.

This answer has been a long time coming for all those of you who kept coming up with questions based on game scenarios. It's effect goes way beyond dumping cards to play "Steven's Advice". This ruling and the prior rulings about not replacing the current stadium with one that is the same, or playing only one stadium per turn, are consistent in denying the ability to manipulate hand size (or eat clock) based on plays that have little or no effect. I'm sure we're just seeing the tip of the iceberg for questions related to this trainer ruling and zero-effect play in general.

So, I ask you... is it obvious?

[There were no rulings from the Sept. 15 meeting].