I am also in favor of getting rid of what I call "petty fouls" like these, but the "purists" of the game do not generally agree with these sorts of changes.
I’m thinking of what a rules committee for a governing body of an international sport should be. Basic tenets of transparency like acknowledging rules changes are being considered. Publishing who is on the committee. Ensuring there is adequate professional player representation on the committee (active and retired). Public comment periods on proposed changes.
I would ask this. Are those “purists” making any effort to understand the preferences of the players or are they firm in a belief that they alone know what’s best for the sport? Because if it’s the latter, there’s a problem inside the bureaucracy.
I’m not trying to assert what I believe is the gospel either. But in that regard, I’d point back to my first paragraph in this post.
You know who would be perfect for something like that if willing, Jayson Shaw. He advocates for what truly is best for the spot, not just short sighted things that would specifically benefit just himself. And he has a good grasp on the wisdom between purity and practicality.
