|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by greymule
Nothing in the case book supports this instructor's claim.
It's not his claim. It's a situation that occurred and according to the instructor they got an official ruling. Furthermore, the association is going to go over the situation at their clinic. In is one of the bigger metro associations in the USA, so I think (I can't be 100% sure though) they are on solid ground.
You quote the rule that they probably used to justify their decision. It certainly follows from the wording. We have an obstruction followed by interference so enforce the interference and ignore the obstruction seems to be what they are saying. The fact that the examples deal with different details of interference and obstruction does not allow us to infer that the interference takes precedence over obstruction does not apply in this situation. Do we have a rule that contradicts interference precedes the obstruction so that we can enfore the obstruction and ignore the interference in this situation? If we have one, great because I do not like this interpretation and I'd say most others do not either.
POE #34 is strange.
I emailed the situation to Merle Butler to verify that this is correct. Can't be sure when I'll get a response but he has always answered previos e-mails about rule interpretations. Will update when I get a response.
|