So the debate is actually about how a bunch of different people define C&O?
I'm usually pretty happy to have a philosophical debate about the intent/point of the laws, but this seems fairly clear-cut to me. Spirit of the law isn't intended to overrule law, it's intended to fill in gaps or help guide borderline decisions - but neither of those principals is relevant here.
And regardless of that, the law doesn't intend to allow players to challenge for chest-high balls using their feet - it's arguably the specific reason for the PIADM law (appreciating that doesn't specifically apply here due to there being contact). "High foot ref" is one of the more common shouts you get that is based on expectations and a misunderstanding of law, but again, a fairly clear example to me that your average grassroots player expects players doing that to be penalised in some way. I just don't understand the argument for no foul here?
I'm usually pretty happy to have a philosophical debate about the intent/point of the laws, but this seems fairly clear-cut to me. Spirit of the law isn't intended to overrule law, it's intended to fill in gaps or help guide borderline decisions - but neither of those principals is relevant here.
And regardless of that, the law doesn't intend to allow players to challenge for chest-high balls using their feet - it's arguably the specific reason for the PIADM law (appreciating that doesn't specifically apply here due to there being contact). "High foot ref" is one of the more common shouts you get that is based on expectations and a misunderstanding of law, but again, a fairly clear example to me that your average grassroots player expects players doing that to be penalised in some way. I just don't understand the argument for no foul here?