[ Show ]
[ Shrink ]
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[> [> Subject: Re: Thank You, Michael, and "Your Honor, Instruct The Jury That New Evidence Has Been Submitted "
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 19:54:52 10/25/21 Mon
Also answers the question of why the booth was solely cited in the Ivy statement, which seemed oversimplistic. No matter the immediate chaos onfield (and it was significant) the booth review was both 1) the ONLY possible source of reviewing an unreviewable call and 2) SOLELY capable of changing it, whatever anybody else thought or not.
I do wonder whether that was really the literal intent of writing the rule, but that sure seems to be precisely what it says.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]
Forum timezone: GMT-5|
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.