|
Snaq: I agree that it all has to be considered together. It has sounded to me like you weigh Article 3 more heavily than the Federation intends, as expressed in POE #1. Maybe I do, as well, who knows. I have no doubt that you are significantly better than I at judging hinderance. I suspect that it may be easier to judge at the level of play you officate, as well. What bugs me, personally, is when I judge something incidental that I subsequently decide wasn't incidental. That means I passed on a foul, because of my own poor judgment. At this point, the only way I know to minimize that is to tighten up on calls similar to your example until I don't notice it happening. I try to judge for the level of play, right down to the individual match-up. That's about as good an answer as I can give you.
More generally, I buy in to POE #1. They believe we are judging too much contact as incidental. I watch varsity officials doing 3A and 4A games in my area, and I understand what the Federation is talking about. Our board has received complaints from ADs (coaches and parents) about rough play. The Federation talks about "as written," but then leaves the language of Article 3 intact. You could argue they contradict themselves. The thrust of their argument is clear, however. They believe the current level of contact judged incidental is too high. They argue that we encourage illegal contact in so doing, which leads to an excessive level of rough play. You have seemed to me to show no sensitivity to their concerns, but that may be because you are just that good, and their concerns really do not apply to you. How do you answer their concerns, for yourself? Do they apply to you, or not? Do you have any doubts?
|