[Back In The Saddle]

Blewthat,

Like you and Juulie, I learn from exploring ideas. I say stuff sometimes just to see what people will say back. People see things differently than I do and I learn from their responses. And maybe unlike a lot of people, I also learn from the process of writing out something and thinking through the details of a reasoned argument. I think it's all good.

With this question I think you're up against a couple of things. First, I'm not sure much, if any, rationale was ever given by the rulesmakers about why it is the way it is. There was certainly a lot of discussion about the AP when it replaced the jump ball. And I'm guessing that, like most big changes, the little details took some time to work out. We don't often get give a list of reasons why this little change or that was made. We're left to figure it out for ourselves. And sometimes the answer is "just 'cuz."

This is probably not a question most officials have asked themselves. We tend to think in terms of how and when and who, and not so much with the why. So you may be trying to draw on an empty well here. Certainly there are rules that we've discuessed and debated endlessly, but this isn't one of them.

Then there's the voluntary, community-based nature of this place. It's a great place to ask questions. But for answers, you're at the mercy of whomever is around at the time and what they're willing to give. Sometimes people are willing to be drawn further into a discussion, sometimes not. Sometimes you're getting the best guesses of the least qualified of us, 'cuz we happen to be around today. So perhaps there just isn't any more to be elicited. And in a field like officiating, where so much knowledge is passed from person to person, the best answer that may exist is: "This is what I was told."

Then there's the rulesmaking process itself. In the beginning there was one guy with a magic marker and a bit of cardboard and he carefully thought it all through and the rules were perfect. And then the first game was played. Ever since then it's been a morass of "let's do this" and "I don't like this" and "We'll try this for a year and tweak what doesn't work." You've got committees writing rules, input from coaches and ADs and players and officials. There's no single thought process driving it, no clear design. In short, there may be no answer.

Merry Christmas.