You want the rules followed unless they pertain to you specifically.

I never cease to be amazed at how people who don't officiate seem to have no idea what "spirit and intent" mean. I am, however, glad to see it doesn't just happen in basketball.

John, you finally seem to be getting it. The rules are established as guidlines which are DELIBERATELY left up to the good judgment of field officials to apply as circumstances dictate for the betterment of the game. If all the rules were applied exactly as written on every play, everywhere, football would have ceased to be a worthwile endeavor 50 years ago.

Glad you brought up this ridiculous "uniform adornment" problem. Is there any conceivable reason why any coach, anywhere, cannot absolutely control what his players wear out onto the field during a game? It makes no sense to me why a competent coach would EVER allow a player to exit the locker room wearing any of the nonsense that's currently prohibited, much less actually permit a player to enter a game like that.

Then again, I try and understand how difficult it often is to monitor 40+ teenagers, who think they have all the answers and get to decide how things will be done, regardless of rules and try to be of whatever assistance I might be in dealing with all the stupid stuff, as inoccuously as possible, keeping things in relative perspective, rather than adding to the confusion.

In the final analysis, both officials and coaches, have different supervisory roles associated with a competitive, very physical, student exercise program and we both share the same objectives; that of seeing the contest conducted and concluded fairly, by appropriately prepared student athletes so that none of the participants get hurt or have a bad experience.

I think more accurately he wants to be a black & white, by the letter of rule sort of coach when the other guys are doing it. If his guys are doing it, I'd bet he's more of a "let 'em play" kinda guy. In other words, like just about every coach.
Advantage gained & how to apply it so the game can actually be played is a concept some people just cannot grasp. Of course that never stops them from advising those of us who can how to do it.

Actually, it was about your "need" to fix a rule that does not need fixing because it's already addressed elsewhere within the rules.

Ruffled feathers in every nest!
:)

Of course it is the coaches fault, when one team follows the rules and the other doesn't but it doesn't get called. Make perfect sense!

Let me ask this, how is it unfair to you if there's no advantage gained?

Glad? Schadenfreude?

I would have thought you'd feel disappointed. Or maybe just relieved. :(

I should have known you'd be the first person in this board to correctly use "Schadenfreude" in a sentence.

I didn't say a word about FAIR. I am talking about calling the rules as written in the rule book.
If one team is breaking the rule and it is not called then they are certainly gaining an advantage because they should be penalized and they are not.

The rules are written to prevent a team from gaining an unfair advantage; not so the other team can get some cheap advantage from a penalty enforcement.

Merely breaking a rule isn't providing an advantage in and of itself. The question is, "What advantage did they gain by breaking the rule?"

I'm not even a football guy, but I can tell that the officials on here are trying to tell you this particular rule is enforced when an advantage is gained and ignored when it is not. It's pretty common in sports. If you don't like it, sorry; but that's just how it is.

At least you admit you're a troll.

Maybe he's a spy?

What if 2-32-15 said this?

ART. 15 . . . A substitute is a team member who may replace a player or fill a
player vacancy. A substitute becomes a player when he enters the field and
communicates with a teammate or an official, enters the huddle, is positioned in
a LEGAL formation or participates in the play.