This thread is (and is getting worse too) a classic example already of over analyzing a hypertechnical rule looking for an infraction. Is there an advantage gained by K moving the tee a few yards left or right? Not likely, if not, then why are we worrying about it? Just because we want to prove we know the rules better than some 17 year old kid kicking off? Big deal!!!
Basic officiating philosphies here guys. 1. don't go looking for fouls and 2. don't call it if it doesn't gain an advantage.
If they start playing games with where the ball is trying to somehow gain some advantage (and really short of maybe an onside when would this really make a huge difference and not let R a chance to see and adjust to it), tell them to knock it off or you might have to flag it. This should never need to go farther than that...
For the most part I agree with the philosophy (i.e. advantage gained) in general, but how do you penalize it
with the rules if you have already let it go multiple times during the game? You can't very well ask them to "designate" a spot, or explain to them what "designating a spot" means if you haven't already asked them to designate or given them the explanation of designation. Well, I guess you
could, but it would be tantamount to admitting to prior wishy-washy enforcement of the rules if their subsequent actions bring a flag. "
No, coach, this time it's illegal," is not something I hope to ever say.
The options in this situation, as I see them:
1) Inform K of their obligation to "designate." If the ball is moved after the RFP, penalize it. Rule is known.
2) Don't inform K of their "designation" requirements. If the ball is moved after the RFP, penalize it. Rule is known.
3) Get into semantics of what "designate" means so that penalties aren't thrown for this type of movement. Rule is not known.
4) Ignore the application of that rule because of the nonspecific verbiage. If it affects the game later, penalize it. Rule is confusing.
Number 4 seems like the worst option to me.