Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc
Thanks for adding your $0.02 Ed. I do understand that there are far more similarities and things in common between rule codes than there are differences.
I guess the point, I apparently didn't make clear enough, is I just didn't understand there being any value to adding the extra language of the NCAA code, where it doesn't appear to make any relevant difference to any rational interpretation.
It doesn't seem to matter very much which interprertation guides your thought process when the definitions mean exactly the same thing. Adding NCAA verbiage often seems a long way around to an objective of, "as simple and concise as possible" or even less confusing
|
I've seen cases where NCAA or NFL had added language in an apparent attempt to clarify what was there already, and left things just as unclear and subject to judgement as Fed's shorter wording. For a long time NCAA incorporated an entire "Football Interpretations" book (cross-referenced to the rules), originally independently written & published, as official, and the combination was of uneven quality -- in some cases redundant, ISTR at least one case flatly contradictory as I saw it, and in many instances lacking where you'd've expected clarif'n. If you looked back over the history of NCAA's football rules, it was apparent to me that in some cases Fed (starting with NCAA's book) deliberately deleted words or passages in
their own effort to clarify, which was more successful.
Disclaimer: I've hardly glanced at a Fed rule book that came out in the past quarter century, so Fed may have messed things up a good deal over that time.
Robert in the Bronx