1) It is NOT my argument. I never discussed this part of the rules and its application before one way or another.
2) Now since I read YOUR argument for this part of the rules, then here is mine:
The call is made by professionals with many years of experience who won the job they currently do by competing for the job with other professionals.
The professional refs have a duty to make a decision and say this contact is deliberate and that one is not. And their decision on ice can be wrong because of game speed, but their decision based on watching the replay is NEVER WRONG.
Because the factor that forces the refs on ice to make mistakes - the game speed is irrelevant when you have a recording you can slow down and watch at any speed and even frame by frame if needed.
It 100% is your argument. Since the contact happened outside of the crease, the contact needs to be intentional or deliberate, per the rules as written. So when I said that "..your ENTIRE argument is based on the laughable notion that Duchene coming to a complete stop outside the crease, while facing the other direction, somehow still qualifies as intentional or deliberate contact." I am 100% correct. If this is not true, then it cannot be a penalty.
Your "new" argument is just a straight up logical fallacy known as "Appeal to authority".
An Appeal to Authority can be a valid argument, but only in some cases. Certain criteria would need to be present in order for it to be valid. Some examples of things that make an Appeal to Authority valid are:
- The observing party does not have access to the information required to attempt to analyze the situation as effectively as the authority. Example: Classified or Private information
- The information requires a high level of expertise or experience to interpret properly. Example: High level STEM subjects or complex legal matters
- The observing party is cognitively impaired or otherwise unable to render sound judgement. (technically no way to rule this out, but the fact that 99% of people here seem to share an opinion makes this so unlikely it is not worth considering by any rational mind)
- There is no pre-existing standard, so there is no contextual information that even exists with which to judge the decision or it's outcomes.
Since none of these factors are present, your "Appeal to Authority" falls within the realm of pure logical fallacy, and should be ignored as a valid argument.
And not only are none of these criteria met, they are actively opposed in some cases. Namely, we have plenty of visual evidence that proves that they do not make this call with the same standards in mind. This means that your statement "They are never wrong" is logically unsound, as it directly violates the "Law of Noncontradiction". If THIS call is correct, then previous calls would HAVE to be incorrect, meaning that the statement "they are never wrong" is provably false using their own standards.
Just go sit down and take your L.