|
Jetmet, I get what your saying. I wouldn't have called this flagrant either. I was just pointing out that somebody could rule it flagrant and they would be supported by the rules.
I also understand what you are saying about a 3 at the end of the game and that the punishment for the offending team might actually be advantageous to them rather than the offended team. I am just saying that we cannot nor should we make our decisions based on what we (heck even most people) would consider fair. That isn't our job. Our job is to enforce the rules as written and apply them as best we can to the situation at hand whether or not we think it is fair or not isn't relevant. Now we can disagree as to how far we can stretch certain rules to fit this particular play. I don't fault you for trying to stretch the rules to make a equitable decision, but I haven't seen an argument yet that has convinced me to use any of the rule options presented so far to make that leap.
|