Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman
And yet, of late, I suspect them of thinking like just that. For instance, when they adopt a provision that probably has the same effect as the other bodies have, only written in such a way as to make it harder to administer or understand, or that has untoward side effects. Like they can't admit the other bodies had a good idea, so they have to put their own twist in the wording.
There used to be a liaison committee to foster Fed-NCAA cooperation on football rules. Now it's "NIH".
|
Have you considered that NFHS rules govern a game involving serious competitive physical contact, complicated tactical interactions and the maturity to prioritize group over personal objectives for players between the formative ages of 8 and 17-19
Whereas NCAA rules govern the same type of interwoven challenges between young men (upper teens-mid/late 20s) entering the next level of human development, the majority of whom have likely been exposed to, trained and experienced the game, to some extent, having progressed through that initial stage and are exposed to a radically larger venue, with totally different responsibilities and objectives .
Why are you surprised that there would be applied incremental adjustments created for the considerably different physical conditions, mental development, experience and maturation of these participants ?
Climbing to the next level in the exceedingly steep physical, skill and mental focus of the Football pyramid, which includes an entirely different objective and reward and responsibility formula and benefit, played by fully grown men at the apex of physical development creates even wider, and different priorities.
Why would you even consider one absolute standard could properly service such dispirit environments equally ?