|
Apparently not
Sez Warren: That was my point: If you as umpire perceive a tie between competing events then the rule will actually tell you how to resolve it!
I know that's your point. But that's not mine. Repeat after me...there is no tie, there is no tie, there is no tie.
Your "understanding" is not only contrary to that of the historians and rule experes, it furthers the moronic mantra we hear over and over: Hey, Blue, the tie goes to the (fill in the blank.)
The tied goes to no one. THERE IS NO FREAKING TIE.
If there was, JEA sure as hell would have discussed it in 7.10(a). If there was, he sure as hell would discuss it in his school and clinics. If there was, it would have been worded as such by the rulesmakers from Cartwright forward.
__________________
GB
|