[blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Grattan Endicott]

Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
**********************
"The history books may record that 
General Semantics was a World War I 
officer who executed his orders from 
GHQ in London with scrupulous fidelity 
to the language in which they were set.
Whether it will be recorded also that 
casualties within his command were 
significantly above the average is not
certain."     ~ G.E. (December 2006)
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

+=+ I agree that the question is as Steve says.
However, the general position is that NBOs 
and Zones are responsible for the training of 
TDs and the current drafting committee is wary 
of coming between them in matters of procedure. 
All I would add is that, personally, I do not see 
how a Director can hope to implement the law 
other than by dealing with multiple infractions in 
chronological sequence.
                               ~ Grattan ~   +=+
..................................................................... 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Willner" <willner at cfa.harvard.edu>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Multiple infractions 
(was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


>> From: "Grattan Endicott" <grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk>
>> +=+ It seems to me that any such material should come as 
>> a recommendation rather than as a Law.
> 
> The question is whether you want multiple infractions to be handled the 
> same worldwide or whether it's a proper subject for regional variation.
> 
> My personal opinion is that handling should be uniform worldwide.  If a 
> deal produces two infractions and is later replayed with the identical 
> two infractions, why should the results differ if the replay is in a 
> different jurisdiction?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>