Completely agree with this, but you would think someone in the compliance office at the NCAA would have the sense of self-preservation, if not common sense and decency to look at this and say 'This is ridiculously trivial and a waste of our time. Case dismissed.' Instead said compliance office tied themselves in knots trying to come up with a sound reason to classify this as a 'secondary violation' falling back on 'while she is young and this was completely unrelated to recruiting, she is not a typical 13 year old and therefore we are invoking rule ____' to be able to classify this as a violation.' That took some hard work and a equally petty attitude toward the situation as the original complaint displayed.