Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bob M.
REPLY: So you would advocate eliminating the clean hands principle?
|
The way I look at it, my way would
affirm the clean hands principle. Maybe we're just playing with words here.
The first principle I'm following is that the penalty erases history beyond the point of the foul for which the penalty is enforced. The 2nd principle is that an exception to the 1st needs to be made in case of fouls affecting safety and so as not to give the original non-offending team a "free shot".
In rugby after a live ball violation the ref lets play continue until satisfied the non-offending team gains no advantage by continuing play. Usually that's a situation where the team without the ball has fouled -- offside for instance -- and the team with the ball continues to try to advance it. If
they commit a violation, they've gained no advantage, and the ref stops play and administers the penalty for the
other team's infraction. "History is erased" when it comes to the subsequent foul by the team that was the victim of the previous foul. But I see a problem with this -- the "free shot" that that team gets to commit a serious violation without penalty. (Of course for something really nasty by that team, the ref can DQ the violator while administering the penalty on the other team.)
I believe the double foul problem is addressed best by what I proposed. The enforcement spot is what it would be for the 1st foul, and if the penalty for it is accepted, no penalty options would even be presented to the other team
unless they're personal foul or USC. (If the penalty for foul 1 is declined, go to the option for the other team's violation.) If such a subsequent PF or USC did occur, then enforce it as if it occurred as a dead ball foul after enforcing the 1st penalty -- that is, it wouldn't affect possession. DQs still count regardless.
Robert