I’m frequently thinking about this tension between making the rules more “concrete” or descriptive, which many coaches and players think would lead to more certainty, and applying a more abstract, “spirit-based” approach to rule-writing (more the current approach). https://twitter.com/self_pass/status/1252499663737012224

I think a descriptive approach fails for 3 reasons:

1. Players, coaches and even some umpires don't know even the 14 rules we currently have. More description = more pages that won't be read, ever.

2. Our game is too chaotic to be tamed by any attempt to corral the variations of scenarios. It's no coincidence the PC is where we have our most detailed prescriptions–it's a set play that has at least a little uniformity to it, but still requires significant interpretation.