[bainsey]

Good discussion.

I've said frequently in my intermediate stint that rules are agreements. Agreements, of course, start with a spirit. Once there's a solid consensus for that spirit, then the wording has to be concise to it. Otherwise, you wind up with confusion, and that has to be taken seriously. (It's a pet peeve of mine when someone isn't clear with their wording, and fires back with "oh, you know what I mean!")

Sometimes, though, people play the spirit card when they're really saying, "I just don't like that rule!" Or, they think it doesn't apply at certain levels. (DOG warnings come to mind.) The problem with the "spirit" thing is that it can indeed bring inconsistencies. Besides, how do they truly know what the spirit is? Were they in on the NFHS rule meetings? In the end, the only spirit they truly know is their own.

I prefer to defer to Roman Law (my board's assigner and/or interpreter) in such matters. If someone else chooses to deviate, I don't see how that's any different from shirking the boss's orders at work.