Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mcrowder
Stop avoiding the point of the issue. Drop IFR from your answer, as GM says, it's a red herring and distracting you from the real issue. Make whatever change you feel necessary to remove IFR from the equation and then answer it (call it a bunt, call it not catchable under ordinary effort ... but conceivably catchable enough that the obvious intentional interference comes into play, remove either R3 or R2 from the equation... whatever you need).
The point of this discussion is that it is possible for the offense to gain an advantage via intentional interference within the rulebook, and which way would you call it if presented with exactly that scenario.
|
The point of this discussion is that it is possible for the offense to gain an advantage via intentional interference within the rulebook.....
That was the point of the Test question which I never denied and agreed with GREYMULE's suggested changes.
.. and which way would you call it if presented with exactly that scenario.
No, under those cirumstances I would call it the way I have been explaining.
And I would be correct by ASA rules.