[blackshoe]

I cannot imagine any reasonable player threatening a director with a lawsuit for issuing a PP. And if someone was stupid enough to do that, I'd tell him to bring it on. Most likely that would be the last I'd hear of it.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2016-January-31, 23:04, said:

I cannot imagine any reasonable player threatening a director with a lawsuit for issuing a PP. And if someone was stupid enough to do that, I'd tell him to bring it on. Most likely that would be the last I'd hear of it.

I was speculating on why TDs are reluctant to issue PPs. I agree that theoretically, PPs might function as a deterrent.

What's relevant, however, is that, in practice, in spite of TD-education, and for whatever reason, TDs impose PPs infrequently and inconsistently.

[jallerton]

I think that Nigel makes a good point.

Some players may interpret receiving a PP as an implication that they have been breaking the law deliberately. Many TDs would prefer to avoid the hassle associated with making such an implication. Or maybe the TDs consider that a higher degree of certainty (e.g. beyond reasonable doubt) is required before issuing a PP, compared with that needed for a rectification adjustment (when balance of probabilities may be sufficient).