Consistency? What's that?

[ILMalti]

Sorry to be so late joining this interesting thread.

I believe there could be consistency in a number of areas.
I do not agree with a score card by coaches unless they are willing to pass the officials exam and take the appropiate classes or are officials themselves.

The interpretation of the rule book should be consistant; the calls which require "a judgment (yes I am using the word ... becasue all seem to agree that it is the right one; still debating internally) may be allowed to be varied from game to game, official to official.

Look at these thread for example: Why should there be such "inconsistant understanding" of say a held ball.

There are 2 articles in 4.25, one dealing with opponents on the ground and the other dealing with an airborbne shooter.

The judgmennt call (see disclaimer above )is whether "preventing the release" for an airborne OR wheter the ball could not be brought under control without undue roughmess. This IMHO, is where inconsistancy can be justified

Calling a held ball when a player on the ground is prevented from releasing a ball is inconsistant and bad.

So I submit that there could and should be consistency in the intepretations of the rules, and justifiable inconsistencies in the judgment calls mentioned above. This, as was mentioned in a previous post, is where experience comes to play an important part or so I think