[Judge Roy]

but you don't answer the question.

Show where in the rule book it says that certian kinds of contact in games is not a foul.

Here's what is happening. Humans make mistakes. All of us do, referees included. Nothing happens to referees who make mistakes. Nothing is ever said publicly to enable the folks who pay the money to make the games occur and result in employment for officials, can ever know if refs were discipline or even corrected for their mistakes. They see you guys noting and sanctioning the players and coaches mistakes. they even see you correct time keepers and scoreboard operators mistakes.

But, no one ever even know IF anyone noticed your mistakes.

I guarantee that in a game between two fairly closely matched teams, I could, quite surepticiously determine the outcome 100% of the time if I was an offical who wanted to do that. If I became suspect, I'd just say, "Hey, I might have missed a couple there."

I further guarantee you that human nature makes SOME of us weak enough to try to do that sometimes. Referees, being human, too, are among 'some of us'.

They don't do the background checks on the NCAA refs for no reason, folks.

They do it because they suspected the possibility of gamblers buying outcomes from referees.

Now, if the game is to be sustained, we have to remove ALL DOUBT that this knind of thing could happen.

How? Call the rule book exactly as written - no exceptions, not points of emphasis, not advice from referees associations except to teach the black letter rules rules from the book and every official call every violation every time.

How does that help? It removes all discretion from referees. It makes their assessment much easier.

I believe the rule book indicates that contact is a foul. Call all contact a foul. The players will figure it out pretty quickly. The game will eturn to one of speed, skill and finesse instead of the wrestling match it has become.

And for you folks the best thing will occur.

No one will ever saw again in a close game - "on three straight possessions there was contact on (name a team) that the covering official saw but 'passed on'."

My point is this. No one gave that official the authority to "pass on it". He did that in contravention of the rules and it gave an advantage to one team over the other. IF he was trying to effect an outcome (and I have no reason to think he was), nothing more than that might have done it. That's why it has to be eliminated.