Confusion About Question on Referee Test

This weekend has been great as many of us have enjoyed the 2010 OFFICIALS SCHOOL--and they were better than ever... HOWEVER, we do have a question about a question.

On the Referee test, question #30 says,

30. Walking by an outer court with no spectators, you hear a player direct an ethic slur at his opponent. The opponent simply smiles and walks back to receive serve. Decision?

A. Do nothing. The opponent wasn't offended.

B. Since there were no spectators around, issue a Code Violation, Unsportsmanlike Conduct, Point Penalty.

C. Issue an immediate Default for the ethnic slur.

The correct answer is "C", and the reference is on Table 16.

HOWEVER, on Table 16 it says to "always penalize" an ethic slur and then gives this explanation:

"An official MAY immediately default a player for a single flagrant unsportsmanlike act. Examples of acts that MAY justify a penalty of immediate default include: physical attacks, injury to an official or player through an act of racket or ball abuse, spitting on a person, and racial, religious, and sexual orientation slurs."

If an official "MAY" default a player then the answer to that question is not necessarily to issue an immediately default for an ethic slur. There is a huge difference in the words "may" and "shall."

However repugnant a racial slur might be, it seems that the FAC says it is not REQUIRED that we issue a default but that we should always penalize the infraction.

I would love to hear your comments on this issue...

* Perhaps in this question, the answer "C" is the best answer of the three. The rule seems to negate a mandatory default.