[psycho_ref]

Thanks for the replies. No point to my question really. Not even sure if it was a question. Just a thought to contemplate. I guess a lot of referees misinterpret ideologies and concepts like "the advantage/disadvantage" and "calling the obvious".

I was actually hoping that some of you would say "if no one felt it then there was no advantage/disadvantage", or "if it wasn't obvious then you should pass on it". Quite frankly I can still see those arguments coming into play using those concepts as justification. Does anyone think these concepts are a good justification?

If the shooter never felt it and doesn't think it is a foul then how can it be disadvantageous?

Someone will say, "how do you know he/she didn't feel it. (for the sake of this philosophical argument lets assume we can read minds).

If there is no victim is there a crime?

I think the question was more of a life question than anything. Sort of "what if you knew you were right and everyone in the world was wrong?". Just a thought. Thanks for the replies.