Question re: Jurisdiction

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Since JR started this thread, Rulz rules.

And JR says "Rulz rules..just about all of the time."

Jmo but I think that you can't make a blanket statement that covers every single circumstance, event, nuance, etc. of what we run into while officiating during our individual career. I realize that the FED tried to take the judgment out of this particular call but I also think that they didn't allow for all situations when they did so. And I think that the majority of officials realize that. It might be analgous to the situation in the past when throwing an elbow without contact was an automatic "T". Officials from sea to shining sea refused to call it because they thought the punishment didn't fit the crime. And the penalty was changed to a violation because of that.

Again this is jmo but I think that this is one example of where the strictest application of a rule doesn't really meet the purpose and intent of the rule. I can't think of one reason why this particular act could ever be called unsporting as long as no taunting was involved with it, or could ever affect the game in any way.

Note that the situation in the OP actually came up in a varsity boys game Tuesday night in one of the high school leagues that we cover. Our association's rules interpreter asked me for my thoughts on it. Which is why I asked for your thoughts on it. You can bet it will be discussed at our next general meeting.

I welcome further feedback and opinions on this one.