Re: Are you in?

Or...or...or...the multitude of reasons being provided in this thread
as to why many leagues or tournies do not use lined fields or
observers, are in fact, legitimate reasons, and not as you
dismissively call them, 'excuses'.

But some good news: for taking a position that's entirely open for
debate, and framing it as an issue that has already been decided; for
use of ad hominems in lieu of actual, considered responses, you get
today's Toadie Award. Congratulations.


On Jun 8, 12:13 pm, Jason Weddle <jason_wed...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
-- It seems as though some are going to come up w excuses for not
having lines, no matter what.  Even though, I KNOW that you can get
lines if you want to (artifical grass or not).  The rule book it
actually says that "... all lines should be marked".

If you for some weird reason your league falls into the catagory of
having an excuse for not having lines, then you REALLY need to make
sure that you have observers. Once the observer makes the ruling for
in or out, it's final.  No "check feet" or "are you in" or "check
feet's not a call!"

There really is no excuse for not having observers or lines at
league.  But, no lines is even more of a reason for observers.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Are you in?
    ... lines if you want to (artifical grass or not). ... If you for some weird reason your league falls into the catagory of ... There really is no excuse for not having observers or lines at ...
    (rec.sport.disc)
  • Re: Qualia Question
    ... "there is no reason to believe that what we are doing when we read or talk ... observers other than the behaving individual. ... > responses are not easily detectable by observers other than the behaving ... > kinesthetic stimuli, you are, in a sense, introspecting. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Are you in?
    ... lines if you want to (artifical grass or not). ... If you for some weird reason your league falls into the catagory of ... There really is no excuse for not having observers or lines at ...
    (rec.sport.disc)
  • Re: Guinness World Records: scientific illiteracy?
    ... > The entry for 1955 states in part: "There is reason to believe that ... > inconsistency (with relativity's requirement that massive objects ... > travel below the speed of light as measured by all observers) ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Guinness World Records: scientific illiteracy?
    ... The entry for 1955 states in part: "There is reason to believe that ... even remoter nebulae exist but, since it is possible that they are ... receding faster than the speed of light (670,455,000 mph / ... travel below the speed of light as measured by all observers) ...
    (sci.astro)