I accept your reading of the word 'cheating' in my previous coment. I was being contentious. However, that lax writing is not pertinent to this. Surely.... YOU should be arguing that you should 'interpret' my word: 'cheating'.... However, I prefer to CLARIFY which seems to be what you are requesting me to do, too.... how strange in the context of this discussion!
You ARE right that some of the rules DO need CLARIFICATION. Interpretation is NOT what's needed. With the seat rule, it clearly needs to have wording covering 'flexing' in there. What's so odd about that? It's just ANOTHER rule that is imprecisely written. The point is that the 'clarification' would FIX the problem. 'Interpretation' makes it a SUBJECTIVE decision: clarification makes it OBJECTIVE!
'Interpretation' is dependent on each Scrute/CoC and each one 'interprets' them differently. It also prevents the 'driver' ever KNOWING how the rule will be applied. Clarification and CHANGING the rules lets the 'driver' KNOW what the rules are..... and prevents certain Scrutes/CoCs from applying their personal bias!
How can that POSSIBLY be a bad thing????!
Ian
|
|