[Tristan Lall]

Seeing as it's coming up again, I just wanted to clarify where I think the onus lies, with respect to judges trying to interpret the significance of their observations with respect to an entire team.

As a matter of good practice, teams should strive to avoid situations where their insignia could lead a person to believe that something disreputable was happening with the team's approval. But shirts are memorabilia too, and naturally, the most authentic pieces are the most valuable, and indeed the best ones to give your friends. So there needs to be some balance. Teams should probably only be handing out their actual uniforms to people they trust...and non-team members wearing those uniforms should probably be aware of what they appear to be to an uninformed observer. (In other words, if you're wearing another team's shirt, be nice.) For random people receiving gifts or souvenirs, maybe they should be provided with something different to at least minimize the possibility of confusion.

But more importantly, judges need to be aware that the opinion of one person doesn't necessarily reflect the mindset of a team. (The same goes for inspectors for that matter, since they're often in similar situations where they might have to evaluate a team's intentions based on the conduct of individuals.) The judges need to be keenly aware of the nature of the contact they're making, and the inferences they draw. If an objectionable remark was overheard while they interviewing a team in a formal setting, did the other team members react positively/negatively? Or was this overheard in a queueing line (e.g. reacting to a call from a past match in private conversation) or a hallway (e.g. a person wearing a shirt with a team's number on it, saying something offensive)? And is the person making the remark in a position of leadership or influence?

And incidentally, the judges are going to have to figure out whether the gracious professionalism award is for the team that is most professional in aggregate, most professional per capita, most consistently professional, or something else. (Owing to the inherent subjectivity and the short amount of time judges spend directly interacting with a team, maybe it's always going to be "something else" by default.)