Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MNBlue
I see your distinction, but do you think that the penalty is allowing for multiple simultaneous violators to be encompassed by the warning? IMO, I don't think so. But, due to the specific wording, I can see how it could be interpretted that way.
|
It should be interpreted this way. Like any progressive disciplinary system, you must progress through one step before you penalize at the next level. The threat of a harsher penalty allows for the offender to correct his negative behaviour at the first level.
The NFHS has 10
team mis-conduct rules that invoke a warning, AND then a restriction for the next offender. Using your interpretation, if you discovered two players with jewelry, or two players behind the backstop, you could warn one and throw the second one out of the game.
There are 6
player mis-conduct rules in which the umpire has the option to issue a warning, with ejection for the second offense by the same player. If a player used two cuss words in the same sentence, would you warn for the first word, and then eject for the second?
OK, maybe I am being a little facetious, but when you look at the entire set of rule, rather than one out of context, you can see that your interpretation cannot work.
WMB