Of course legal counsel is not concerned with actual safety. Legal counsel wants to know if they had all their ducks in row when presented to a jury.

Consider the average jury's reaction to the rule and the spec. A spec exists and the rule utilized it. Do you think for a second they will have any desire to gain sufficient understanding that the spec was manipulated in its creation and as a result the rule reduced safety? From their perspective an "independent" body set a spec and the rule relied on it. Legal counsel says the club is good to go.

Which makes me wonder why we even have any group in the club with safety in the title. If they are going to pass on their responsibility for our safety to those who are trying to address legal liability - what is the point? Oh to give the appearance that it was the safety group who determined and put the rule in place for a jury, of course.

The whole thing is a farce and I really don't understand how such a large group of persons representing the club and claiming to be addressing safety can actually stomach this result.