Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
I think your original point was that going OOB "on purpose" was sufficient for an advantage. I was covering both bases with my example: being done "on purpose" is not necessary for there to be an advantage gained. My example shows how.
Since being done "on purpose" IS necessary for there to be a violation, my example is not a violation. So clearly gaining an advantage is not sufficient for calling the violation.
See?  |
Yes I get it. But what you also show is that this violation should probably be called even less than I would call it. Which has been pretty much never. Because I'm (rightly or wrongly) using advantage to call this, no matter how he got there.