[blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Tim West-Meads]

Ed wrote:
 
> In parallel with this principle of modern military law one could  
> argue that a TD should not be bound by "illegal" regulations, but 
> who  decides whether they are illegal? And does the parallel really 
> make  sense in the context of a game, anyway?

It's a game which sometimes involves a fair amount of money and pride.
As a TD I accept that any ruling I make *could* end up in an expensive
law-suit.  I believe that my personal liability for costs would be
greatly increased were I found to have made a ruling "knowing" it to be
illegal.  Even were the SO to provide me with full liability cover and
waivers etc I am unconvinced that my duty of care to the SO allows me to
expose them to the possible costs of an illegal action on my part.

As with the military, it is the TD alone who can make a decision as to
whether a specific "order" is legal.  If he genuinely believes it is not
I think "disobey and pray one is later found in the right" is the correct
course.  Similar cases arise in civil/company law (following a company
regulation which one knows breaches the law of the land is still an
offence).

NB, most regulations are worded as poorly as the laws and it will often
be possible to "interpret" the context such that a specific ruling
complies with both.

Tim