View Single Post
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 07, 2010, 12:28pm
MD Longhorn MD Longhorn is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM) View Post
johnny & DG,

While I agree that UMPTT was correct and that 6.04(h) covers the situation, INTENT is not relevant to the ruling.

JM
It does if there IS intent.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote