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

I'm contemplating a concept that I wanted to run by you for your comment, elaboration, input, etc. Comment if interested. Ignore if not.

We hear these two phrases, usually accompanying each other: the "Letter of the Law", and the "Spirit and Intent of the Rule."

What I'm toying with is this: Those two things must be approached in that order, with the first primary, then the second as judicious application of the first. However, there are some who seek, in wayward fashion, to survive on the second with little or no regard to the first. That is . . .

First of all, a knowledge of the rules must be the first priority. Then, with that knowledge in store, proper judgment can be executed according to the spirit and intent of the rules when the situation calls for flexibility.

Ignorance of the "Letter of the Law", the rules, and trying to officiate solely by the "Spirit of the Rule" leads to bad outcomes, gets an official in compromising conditions, and fosters the preception of crew inconsistency. Some may do this at their own and the sport's peril, such as when officials downplay the importance of rules study and try to survive merely on their innate knowledge of the game either from when they played as an athlete or as they claim they've gained it from years of on-court minutes.

Knowing the rules is important so that, when judicious application calls for flexibility in a situation, that flexibility at least has a knowledgeable basis.

Officials who don't care to know the rules often find it difficult, when the situation merits it, fairly to call what's right because they don't understand first and foremost what is correct.

Every wording of a rule has a reason or "spirit" in which it was created. You obviously cannot have one without the other. That is why when a rule is added, the wording often has to be changed to not cause certain confusion. The NF is good for taking 2 or 3 years to get a rule right when they add a rule and this is why.

Peace

Freddy:

I do not think that I could of said it any better that you just have.

MTD, Sr.

Exactly. The spirit is always first....before the letter exists much less stabilizes.

What the game is supposed to be isn't always represented in the letter. It is the desirable that the letter be kept brief and provide principles and concepts and not be an exhaustive list of do's and don'ts (despite some individuals insistence that it be otherwise). Sometimes, you just have to know the game to know how things should be.

But The Referee The Other Night Let Us Wear Them ...
 

I hate it when this happens. We all need to do "it", or we all need to not do "it". I don't care how we interpret a certain rule, as long as we all do it the same.

Last year we had two different "spirit" interpretations in regard to tights. Our local interpreter will "take the bull by the horns" at our first "interpretation meeting" of the season so that we are all doing the same thing this upcoming season. He will also inform all the coaches in regard to his interpretation during the preseason coaches "new rules meeting".

Why do you or anyone care that everyone does something the same? If you are doing something right in the eyes of your assignors, association or fellow officials, why does anyone care if there are some people that do not do things the way they are told?

Peace

Do all teams you see always play in games with officials assigned by that same assignor? Of course not. If two assignors (or people in other authoritative capacities in your state) differ on their direction, who do you follow? If you go by the philosophy of doing things the way your specific assignor wants it for one game, that seems fine. But, why should teams have different rules depending on who assigned the game? Also, why should officials have to remember the nuances of each assignor if they work for several? Seems like a recipe for a mess and more distrust of officials.

It is a little overstated in my situation to suggest assignors really say that much to the officials they assign for games, honesty that is really not the case in many situations that I experience. There is only one association I belong to where the assignor really bloviates about what they do not want or what they do want in their conference. Pretty much everyone else you find out through some experience of others or your own experiences that you did not handle a situation correctly in their eyes. This usually does not involve one rule. For example I have never had anyone tell me to not call a certain violation or to not call that foul (other than Multiple Fouls, but that is another story all together. :D) Overall here were are more dictated to by the state as they control playoff assignments which is the carrot that most follow or risk opportunities. Of course you have guys that feel like, "I do not want to do that" but it only hurts them in the long run. Assignors in my experience usually want as many top guys in their conferences and that means people that do what the state wants.

I have learned more about the spirit of rules when a new rule comes out and the NF/NCAA comes up with some interpretation. Or when they make a POE out of a rule, or when you read something in the casebook. Most rules have some level of comment on them and if they don’t then it is clear they do not feel there needs to be one. Just like you do not hear POEs wanting Multiple Fouls to be called more, but you see Intentional Fouls and Traveling are often being suggested to be addressed.

Peace

You've Got A Problem With The Uniform Enforcement Of Rules ???
 

If I decide to ignore tights, then many of my "fellow officials" (who evaluate, and rate me) will think that I am doing something wrong. And if I decide to restrict tights, then another segment of my "fellow officials" (who evaluate, and rate me) will think that I am doing something wrong. We don't have some officials, here in my little corner of Connecticut, who wear "Fashion Police" badges, while others don't wear them, and without "badges", I'm not a mind reader.

Mid-Thread Intermission
 

Interesting to see the directions the thread has been taken. One direction, in particular, has been very enlightening to me and has caused me to ponder perspectives new to me. For that I thank you.

The original intent of my inquiry was this. There seem to be some officials who, while hesitant or downright neglectful in rules study, at the same time justify their lack of rules knowledge with a self-acclaimed understanding of "the spirit and intent of the rules".

What I'm trying to understand is this: can an official possibly survive on some sort of a perceived knowledge of "the spirit and intent of the rules" without actually knowing the rules themselves?

In other words, in the mind of the official which comes first is primary, knowing the rules or an awareness of the spirit and intent of the rules?

Full Disclosure: I'm inclined to think it's not an either/or but a both/and.

Any input or comment of that specific issue?

Thanx for your responses thus far.

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.

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.

+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.

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.

All Aboard ...
 

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