|
This seems like a basic debate between two officiating philosophies:
1. The rules are the rules, and should be enforced as written at all times, regardless of the "fairness" of the outcome.
2. The rules are the rules, but they are there to enforce a certain desired outcome (namely a fair match), moreso than on any strict adherence to the letter of the rules, while potentially ignoring the spirit and intent behind the rules.
I am not arguing that one is "right", I can see the arguments for both positions. Personally, I probably lean towards the second position, while understanding the pitfalls involved in it when it comes to consistency and application.
To me though, at the end of the day, it comes down to judgement, and doing what is "right" - and I realize, and accept, that two people can both come to different conclustions about what is right as well.
I don't think the rules should be changed, because changing them to "allow" this kind of judgement in a particular situation would likely make more problems than it solves - and this should be an exceedingly rare situation.
I would elect to put some time back on the clock, I think, even knowing that doing so is not strictly supported by rule. While putting .8 back on the clock might be hosing a team if there was really only .5, putting 0 on the clock when there was really .5 is hosing a team even more.
Hopefully I am never going to be in that position though.
|