"Letter..." or "Spirit..." -- Can the Second Exist Without the First First

[rockyroad]

Gotta know the rules to be able to delve a little deeper into the spirit/intent of the rule. If you don't have knowledge of what the rules actually say, then you can't possibly know what the intent of that rule was/is. One of the main reasons why we have our "rookie" class people study Rule 4 between the first class session and the second.

[johnny d]

I have to agree with Jrut on this issue, at least for us, people pretty much follow or adhere to the guidelines the state puts forth or they risk losing their post season assignments. As far as a situation like the tights thing, most people in our area, including coaches, assignors, and officials could care less about uniform violations and most likely nothing would be said or done about it. On the other hand the last 2-3 seasons one of the nutjobs at our state office really got a bug up their *** about uniforms and was actively taking playoff games from people. In response, officials were making team captains take off their jerseys before the games started so they could measure size of letters and use straight edges to determine if the curved letters crossed the plane of the numbers. It was absolutely ridiculous and a complete waste of time.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by johnny d

As far as a situation like the tights thing, most people in our area, including coaches, assignors, and officials could care less about uniform violations and most likely nothing would be said or done about it.

I have no problem with this approach, as long as everybody is "on board.

[tref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Gotta know the rules to be able to delve a little deeper into the spirit/intent of the rule. If you don't have knowledge of what the rules actually say, then you can't possibly know what the intent of that rule was/is. One of the main reasons why we have our "rookie" class people study Rule 4 between the first class session and the second.

+1

Knowing definitions is key to adjudicating properly. Also "the official shall vs. may..." is important when decisions within the grey area comes in to play.

[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.