[blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Tim West-Meads:

>I believe that infraction should be defined.

Richard Hills:

I agree that it is an obvious hole in the 1997
Lawbook's version of the Chapter 1 Definitions
that "irregularity" is defined, but "infraction"
is not defined.

Tim West-Meads:

>I don't think "irregularity committed by a
>player" works.  I think spectators can commit
>infractions.

Richard Hills:

While it is obvious that a spectator can commit
an "irregularity" contrary to Law 76, I do not
think it would work stating a spectator can
commit an "infraction", since it is impossible
to adjust a spectator's score to rectify that
so-called "infraction".

To me it seems sensible that "irregularities"
should be defined to include, but not be
limited to, "infractions" committed by players.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC
02 6225 6776

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm