[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Old School

I'm a little concerned about the so what part. I think it helps when we have more officials that are concerned about the game then robots who has master following directions.

This sounds a little like you are trying to justify your lack of rules knowledge by calling officials that know the rules "robots", while saying that you have the flexibility to call the game as you see fit. This insults the majority of good officials that strive to know all the rules, and still call the game as it should be called. All of the great officials that I know not only have a great understanding of the rules, but are the furthest thing from being a "robot" that I know. You must have a complete understanding of all the rules to then know about flexibility and when certain rules apply and when others don't. Being able to communicate effectively is also a trait of a great official. Maybe you have some of that understanding, however, you have not been able to communicate that over your time posting here.

Originally Posted by Old School

I understand the rule is as it is, but it doesn't mean I have to like it. Also, I am not in the least opposed to change as long as that change takes us in a positive direction, like double foul POI.

You certainly have a right to your opinion, however, you have not been able to communicate your understanding of the rule. This is why you have been met with such great opposition. Two people might say M&M's are bad. One might say it is because they have an allergic reaction to chocolate. The other might say it's because banks hand them out with loans, and they hate banks. Both people have the same end conclusion, but the second person will be met with much more opposition than the first for the off-the-wall logic.

In the case of this rule change, many officials that understand the rules and the reason for the change actually feel this change closes that can o' worms. There has been many a discussion on whether kicking the ball ends a TI (big can of worms). We now it it doesn't - can closed.

Originally Posted by Old School

This change does nothing more than open up another can of worms that we will have to keep track of that is off the beaten path, and not apart of the norm. I think the arrow has swung way too far the other way, giving the recieving team another AP in the future and the current inbound if the defense kicks the all. You can't have both. You can have the ball and neither one of us gets the arrow until the ball is legally touched, or you give me the future arrow but you can't have both, but that's just my opinion.

Why can't you have both? Why do you want to take one away? Let's try this one: held ball, arrow points to A. You get ready to give the ball to A1 for the APTI, and B's coach calls you a Jurassic Referee. Of course you give the coach their deserved T, shoot FT's, and give the ball to A1 at the division line. Now, according to you, you are giving team A too many TI's, because they get this TI for the T, and they still get the arrow for later. Is this a correct assumption of your position?