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">https://twitter.com/self_pass...

I think a descriptive approach fails for 3 reasons:

1. Players, coaches and even some umpires don& #39;t know even the 14 rules we currently have. More description = more pages that won& #39;t be read, ever.

2. Our game is too chaotic to be tamed by any attempt to corral the variations of scenarios. It& #39;s no coincidence the PC is where we have our most detailed prescriptions–it& #39;s a set play that has at least a little uniformity to it, but still requires significant interpretation.