Possible rules changes for 2009

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

That language solves nothing. When is it never obvious that a kick may be attempted? A kick may be attempted on 1st & 10. I've seen kicks on 1st down a few times, but even if it'd never been done, it may be done.

I think it gives us an out and they're relying on our judgment as experienced officials. It's basically to keep you from using it as your base offense. You're not going to punt every time you get the football, are you?

If you want iron-clad language, write some iron-clad language. I'd be fine with the language as written above to back up a call I'd make in an A-11 circumstance. As in, "You're obviously not punting coach, give me a break."

It's a 'spirit of the rules' thing, right? Much of the discussion here about A-11 is that, while it technically follows the rule as written, it violates the spirit of why the numbering exception exists. So people are up in arms.

So if they put in some language to give us a leg to stand on (if you want "obvious punting situation" or "in the referee's judgment" or whatever, knock yourself out), you'd have to have the same opinion about the "spirit" in which it's intended, right?

If team A sends out the 5-8 soccer player and a holder on 4th and 7 from the 10 yard line, they may run a fake, but if I'm the correct-side wing in a four-man game, I'm going under the goalpost because that looks to me like they're going to kick a field goal. I don't need iron-clad language to tell me that.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

...

If you want iron-clad language, write some iron-clad language. I'd be fine with the language as written above to back up a call I'd make in an A-11 circumstance. As in, "You're obviously not punting coach, give me a break."

It's a 'spirit of the rules' thing, right? Much of the discussion here about A-11 is that, while it technically follows the rule as written, it violates the spirit of why the numbering exception exists. So people are up in arms.

So if they put in some language to give us a leg to stand on (if you want "obvious punting situation" or "in the referee's judgment" or whatever, knock yourself out), you'd have to have the same opinion about the "spirit" in which it's intended, right?

...

Unless the Rules Committee removes the numbering exception completely it is going to rely on interpretation.

Rule writing is an art especially when you consider there are those who seek to exploit

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Unless the Rules Committee removes the numbering exception completely it is going to rely on interpretation.

Rule writing is an art

As is officiating itself, n'est-ce pas?