[Baez87]

Our Board discussion of the skirmish between Brink and Hollingshed was foreshadowed by a debate a few days ago about the application of the rules of engagement to the play of the game. As I recall the discussion, opinion ranged on a continuum from "apply the rules strictly as written" to "let them play."
In general, each ref seems to have a style of calling the game. Some seem to get caught up in watching rather than calling, others seem to anticipate an infraction or to interpolate what they cannot see, others seem to see the play more accurately. In any game, the resulting accumulative calls are not perfect, so we will never see a game in which the rules are applied perfectly as they are written. And there will always be some level of subjectivity, bias, human error, and dispute.
I found in reading the various opinions on the Brink-Hollingshed skirmish to be useful in dissecting the rules and their interpretation. I noticed that my own opinion of "the call" fell slightly closer to the "let them play" polarity. In my purely rules-oriented view, both players should have been assessed a level 2 technical and been ejected (and, according to the rules, kept out of their next game). In my flow-of-the-game interpretation, I felt that the refs chose a very wise course of action. They didn't interject themselves in the game by strictly applying the rules, instead they took a course of action that acknowledged that an infraction had occurred and gave each player a technical, which also served as a warning that a future tech would result in an automatic ejection. In that way, all key players could remain on the floor, the game was clearly under the control of the officials, and no one could say that the refs altered the course of the game.
I like to give the refs grief anytime I can, but in this instance it seems like they gave us the best of all possible worlds in their decision.

[Baez87]

Our Board discussion of the skirmish between Brink and Hollingshed was foreshadowed by a debate a few days ago about the application of the rules of engagement to the play of the game. As I recall the discussion, opinion ranged on a continuum from "apply the rules strictly as written" to "let them play."
In general, each ref seems to have a style of calling the game. Some seem to get caught up in watching rather than calling, others seem to anticipate an infraction or to interpolate what they cannot see, others seem to see the play more accurately. In any game, the resulting accumulative calls are not perfect, so we will never see a game in which the rules are applied perfectly as they are written. And there will always be some level of subjectivity, bias, human error, and dispute.
I found in reading the various opinions on the Brink-Hollingshed skirmish to be useful in dissecting the rules and their interpretation. I noticed that my own opinion of "the call" fell slightly closer to the "let them play" polarity. In my purely rules-oriented view, both players should have been assessed a level 2 technical and been ejected (and, according to the rules, kept out of their next game). In my flow-of-the-game interpretation, I felt that the refs chose a very wise course of action. They didn't interject themselves in the game by strictly applying the rules, instead they took a course of action that acknowledged that an infraction had occurred and gave each player a technical, which also served as a warning that a future tech would result in an automatic ejection. In that way, all key players could remain on the floor, the game was clearly under the control of the officials, and no one could say that the refs altered the course of the game.
I like to give the refs grief anytime I can, but in this instance it seems like they gave us the best of all possible worlds in their decision.