Quote:
|
Originally Posted by meaubry
sw293,
Please be careful when posting about what the ref's are doing when they deciding on a 30 pt penalty. I will give you your opinion about what you think they are thinking - I don't necessarily agree with your analysis, but you are allowed to form your opinion.
The ref's might simply be indicating that the team violated a rule in which 30 pts is the penalty.
I can't read their minds, and I wouldn't want to put words in their mouths.
Intent is a difficult thing to judge, that is why this rule is a tough one on everyone involved. Watching many many matches over the years, I have come to one conclusion - intent is determined by those that are doing, not those that are watching.
|
We are not talking about a thirty point penalty either. We are talking about disqualification.
The fact that intent is so difficult to judge is exactly why refs should apply this rule only in the most blatant and obvious situations. If there is a question as to what the team might have intended, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the team. The ref should always assume that both teams are observing gracious professionalism, and he should not deviate from that assumption unless he is given clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Otherwise gracious professionalism is just a cheap campaign slogan.
Twelve jurors must agree beyond a reasonable doubt for a court of law to determine affirmatively the intent of a criminal. In FIRST, one head ref can decide the intent of a team by using his own discretion. That is why he should be very cautious in making such calls.