Thread: ouch!!
View Single Post
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 26, 2009, 03:39pm
ManInBlue ManInBlue is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt View Post
This logic is incorrect. Intent is a requirement of malice.
Not when you take into account all the safety rules written in FED. Webster's may define it with intent, but they didn't write the FED rule book.

With the new defensive malicious contact written into the rules, a hard tag could be considered malicious.

This tag was in the face, it didn't have to be, it COULD be malicious even without intent.
Reply With Quote