I concur. When I train officials, I tell them that judgement is part of every rule application. To your example, is it 44 degrees or 46 degrees for the shoulders? That is a judgement.
Now, to reassure everyone reading this, I also train my officials that you START with the rule. And, if the rule tells you that Near Fall criteria is met when one shoulder is in contact with the mat, and the other is within 45 degrees, that is the rule you are applying. If your judgement tells you that the shoulders are 46 degrees, you are not counting near fall and you are correctly applying the rule. If your judgement tells you the shoulders are 44 degrees, then you are counting near fall and you are correctly applying the rule.
If a coach requests a conference, and asks why you weren't awarding near fall, you start by saying what the rule is. Next, you explain what you saw as the basis for applying the rule in that situation. For example, if the coach brings me to the table, and I say, "Coach, the shoulders have to be within 30 degrees for near fall, so that's why I didn't award near fall because they were only at 44 degrees." - then the coach would rightly tell me I have misapplied the rule.
But, if I say, "Coach, near fall criteria requires shoulders within 45 degrees, and your kid had them at 46 degrees, that's why I wasn't counting near fall" - then the coach would conclude that I know the rule, I am applying it correctly, and he may still disagree with my judgement (e.g., Coach believes the shoulders were more like 40 degrees).
Responses « Back to index | View thread »