|
I think NF 2.16.2.c (The NFHS definition of "Flagrant") is a perfect example of, yet another, NFHS rule that recognizes and relies on the common sense, understanding of the game and judgment of competent officials to appropriately enforce rules designed to achieve specific, broad objectives.
The ambiguity is no accident, rather it provides the flexibility necessary to match a specific action against a general, reasonable to understand, standard that can be applied to a never ending variety of different actions.
That judgment is placed, soley, in the hands of the individual official observing a particular action, and anyone who dares to speculate about how close they can get to where that fine line may have been drawn, does so at the risk of great peril.
|