|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|||
"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.
__________________
Making Every Effort to Be in the Right Place at the Right Time, Looking at the Right Thing to Make the Right Call Last edited by Freddy; Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 11:34am. |
|
|||
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Quote:
Freddy: I do not think that I could of said it any better that you just have. MTD, Sr.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn. Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn. Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials Ohio High School Athletic Association Toledo, Ohio |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
But The Referee The Other Night Let Us Wear Them ...
Quote:
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".
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36) |
|
|||
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
Quote:
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
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.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36) Last edited by BillyMac; Mon Sep 17, 2012 at 06:39am. |
|
|||
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.
__________________
Making Every Effort to Be in the Right Place at the Right Time, Looking at the Right Thing to Make the Right Call Last edited by Freddy; Mon Sep 17, 2012 at 07:41am. |
|
|||
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.
|
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
I gotta new attitude! |
|
|||
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.
__________________
Confidence is a vehicle, not a destination. |
|
|||
All Aboard ...
I have no problem with this approach, as long as everybody is "on board.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36) |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NHSF "intentional" vs NCAA "flagarent" terminology | Duffman | Basketball | 17 | Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:15pm |
Is "the patient whistle" and "possession consequence" ruining the game? | fiasco | Basketball | 46 | Fri Dec 02, 2011 08:43am |
OT: Calling the official a "hater" and "loser" | bainsey | Basketball | 35 | Wed Sep 14, 2011 03:53pm |
ABC's "Nightline" examines "worst calls ever" tonight | pizanno | Basketball | 27 | Fri Jul 04, 2008 06:08am |