Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
I think it is different from the backcourt interp, which actually contradicts the rule.
The conflict here is between the letter and the spirit of the rule. I'm ok going with the spirit, provided local customs of calling the game and expectations mandate it.
|
But in the case of the uniform, there really isn't a "spirit" vs. "intent", because the spirit and intent are specifically spelled out in the case play, and others. I believe it's also specifically mentioned that removing the jersey within the visual confines even for changing due to blood, etc. is still a technical foul. There is certainly no intent, disrespect, etc. in this case, but yet the committee wants that to be a T.
It may be an easy answer to say, "that's the way my supervisor wants it called", and realistically, those of us not in power have to follow that. But why do those supervisors and veterans get to decide they want to call something different than a specific rule and/or case mandates? Isn't that the exact reason players and coaches complain about a lack of consistency? One team gets their officials through an assignor that thinks removing the jersey at the end of the game is nothing more than simple celebration (don't take the game away from the kids...), and they travel to a school that uses officials that are told to follow the rules as the NFHS has prescribed - what should they say when they're penalized for the same act they do at home without issue?