[coralpro]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

You point out what you think are inconsistencies, what you see as flaws.. We point out why they are not inconsistent within the context and intent of the rules. We give examples and explain our reasoning, which is essentially the same reasoning process that the governing rules bodies would use in discussing a proposed change.

Then you just start repeating the same things over and over, without ever proposing a solution which remains true to the intent of the rules, or that refutes anything I or AF have said. Most of the time you don't even refer back to anything we have said, instead you just ignore it. I don't really even know why I'm still typing this, except that I'm astounded that this can be such a difficult concept to grasp. It would be easier to convince the Pope that Jesus is alive and living in Beverly Hills...


I will end this by repeating the truism... "No man is so blind as he who will not see."

Yes I have but you fail to see it. Don't allow the rules to give relief in some circumstances due to a poor shot but yet not get relief from a good shot that got a bad break. Play them all as they lie or don't differentiate certain scenerios and not others. One either is responsible for the conscequences of their shot or they're not. But it shouldn't be arbitrarily stated one is and one isn't. That's for starters.