This week I am going to present to you the opening part of a very valid article written by Tom Hammill, a veteran and experienced referee, way back in 1995. Although over ten years have passed since then, there is no doubt that most of the ideas and observations put forward by Hammill are still more than valid today and even in the future.

In a nutshell, Hammill dedicates the article to the fine line that exists between using common sense and going too technical (sticking literally to the rules) during games. Here follows what Hammill wrote.

A rule is a rule. In football, holding is always holding whilst in basketball, travelling is never ignored. At least that is what I thought when I began officiating those sports over three decades ago.

My officiating “career” was in danger of becoming terminally technical. I was headed toward extinction because I did not understand the inseparable links between rules, their spirit and intent, and good old common sense.

One evening, after I had officiated a prep JV basketball game, the home team's varsity coach, who had seen me work, opened my eyes and my mind by telling me in a father-like manner: “Tom, you have excellent judgment on blocks and charges, things like that. But you are way too technical. You make unnecessary calls which ruin the tempo of the game. Yes, technically, the calls are correct, but they are not the right calls to make under the circumstances.”

Normally I ascribe little credibility to what coaches say about officials. This time, however, the more I thought about his constructive criticisms, the more I realised I was my own worst enemy. It took months of soul-searching and years of practice to shed the residue of those early days. I wish I had known then what I know now. I wish I had listened more to those whose philosophies have been validated by time.

How do various officiating experts feel about the way rules are intended to be enforced? I talked with a host of them, seeking to tap their expertise. The vast majority of those interviewed are deeply rooted in high school turf; nearly all are either active or former officials.

Dick Schindler, 64, virtually sets the tone for what is expected of high school officials nationwide. A National Federation of State High School Associations assistant director, Schindler is rules editor and interpreter for basketball, football and track and field.

Schindler said that clearly indicating a rules spirit and intent or carefully explaining why a rule change was made is a critical part of the rules-writing process. “It’s easy (for an official) to read a paragraph and say, ‘Well, that’s the rule.’ But you also have go back and look at why the change was made. In other words, what did this rule really change? What was the intent of the rule?” He added that an official must “know the reason for the rule in order to really adjudicate it properly.”

For example, Schindler cited the basketball rule prohibiting a player from faking a violation along the free-throw lane. “The intent of that rule is to try to clean up the techniques coaches taught their players to try to draw opponents into the lane at crucial times.” But even knowing that would not create complete uniformity in the way it is handled. “It’s going to be enforced differently because, not every official is the same. “You might judge a player’s movement as not trying to influence an opponent and I might judge the same movement as trying to influence an opponent.” He said there will always be those kinds of differences, which will be minimized if the officials know the basics of why the rule is there.

Dave Carlsrud, 49, an assistant to the executive director of the North Dakota High School Activities Association, said there is no gray area for fouls which could cause injuries or for unsportsmanlike behavior. “Those are letter-of-the-rule calls. With Federation rules, safety of the participants is number one and then there’s sportsmanship. You can’t warn for unsportsmanlike conduct,” he said decisively.

On the other hand the rationale that is to be followed, on other contact, is that if there is no unfair advantage had been gained, then there is no need to have a foul called.

Earle Yost, Arizona Interscholastic Association commissioner of officials, cited the same scenario as Carlsrud and concurred on how to handle it. Yost, 70, said that in addition to weighing whether an opponent was placed at an unfair advantage, an official should also determine if the offender “put his opponent in a position where he was going to be put at a disadvantage.”

Yost added some more interesting words, “I think rules are written as guidelines. To be a good official, you have to apply rules based on their spirit and intent. You have to use good judgment.”

This article will be continued in the coming weeks.