02-04-2012, 04:37 PM
I think the rule means what it says, ie current playing strength, and I don’t see that this needs amendment. I certainly don’t favour a rule which specifies an exact grading order; small grading differences are insignificant. A team captain who listed players far out of grading order could expect to be asked to justify this (as happened when I was running these events) and be penalised if appropriate.
There is an inescapable conflict between what may be seen as absolute consistency and common sense. I refer to the preamble to the Laws of Chess: "Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement..." and agree very much with that.
It's very prevalent in football to have managers demanding 'consistency'. They forget that this can throw other things out of the window. One example is "It's either a penalty or a dive" - nonsense, there's a grey area in between. I think football is too prescriptive.
There is an inescapable conflict between what may be seen as absolute consistency and common sense. I refer to the preamble to the Laws of Chess: "Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement..." and agree very much with that.
It's very prevalent in football to have managers demanding 'consistency'. They forget that this can throw other things out of the window. One example is "It's either a penalty or a dive" - nonsense, there's a grey area in between. I think football is too prescriptive.