[gblake]

Folks,

I never cease to be amazed that so many people want to substitute their opinions about GP-ness, Spirit-of-the-Game, and similar nebulous concepts for the rulebook. I certainly don't.

Instead I embrace the rules; and I consider following them meticulously to be the very embodiment of those sorts of concepts.

If the rule authors make statements outside of the rules that contradict or appear to contradict what the rules allow, then I come down firmly on the side of those statements being either mistakes, or being interesting but irrelevant; and not on the side of treating them as new rules.

If those statements made outside the rules were new/different rules, then they would actually be rules, and not comments associated with the rules.

I can sympathize with the OP asking their question, for the sake of confirming that they didn't overlook something when they did their mental post-mortem review of the situation.

It's the rest of the folks (and its not the same people each time) that make me scratch my head.

Dear OP - What occured wasn't illegal. Referees use the rules to call the game. The rules determine what is legal/illlegal. What would you want a referee to do? Decide to add a rule?

Recently at a robotics tournament I commented to someone that following the law (the rules) doesn't always result in justice; but, that I believed the alternative leads to worse outcomes. That comment might apply in this situation.

Blake