|
The legal system has judgements like that all over the place, because life is a situation we're forced into. But games are invented. We have the chance to make game rules that reduce uncertainty, and I'm amazed that several posters here actually want to increase uncertainty in football. The reason I asked the above question is that although making scrimmage kick fomation a judgement call based entirely on an official's opinion of the game situation would be a terrible thing, at least the uncertainty could be mitigated if the teams were told in advance what the ref had in mind. What objection could there possibly be to requiring an announcement?
Nobody has answered my question of why the logic of "play situation" shouldn't be applied to the passing rules by Fed too. What if it looks like a pass play was called, but team A failed to pass (and thereby draw a foul by B) because their receiver(s) was/were not open because he/they was/were contacted in a way that would've been illegal on a pass play? Actually NFL does have a rule that depends on whether it looks during play as if a pass is still likely, so it's not unprecendented. Do you see why Fed spared their officials of this judgement? Even the NFL had the sense to base it on a judgement during play rather than of the play situation before the down.
Come to think of it, why not ban the forward pass except in officially-judged "passing situations"? If such judgements are so easy and equitable, wouldn't it simplify the officials' jobs to not be surprised by pass plays?
Robert
|