![]() |
In another thread, now closed, Dave Hensley makes the following post and the issues it raised were never properly addressed:
<hr color="blue"> Moose's argument that an umpire should "accept" any protest, without attempting to quash it because it is over a judgment call, is supported by at least two authoritative opinions I am aware of. This issue has been the subject of lively debate in various discussion forums for years. Last year, it came up on the eteamz.com discussion board right around this time. The focus at that time was on Little League's protest rule, and whether an umpire could or should "reject" a protest because it was over a judgment decision rather than a disputed rule interpretation. It so happened one of the participants in that discussion was going to be attending a Little League rules clinic that very weekend, that was to be attended by Andy Konyar, UIC for Little League Baseball. He took that question (and a number of others) to the meeting and came back with the gospel according to Andy K. On this issue, Andy supported my argument (which is the same as Moose's) that an umpire should acknowledge and announce a coach's protest when it is made, and not attempt to "deny" or "disallow" or "reject" the protest. Ruling on the validity of the protest is the protest committee's job, not the umpire's. The other authoritative opinion is the Professional Interpretation as reported by Jim Evans in Baseball Rules Annotated. He says: > Professional Interpretation: At times, a manager may insist on lodging > a protest on a decision which is, in essence, a judgment call. After > explaining the prohibition against protesting judgment calls, the > umpire should go ahead and accept the protest in order to proceed with > the game in a timely manner. It will then be the league presidentÂ’s > responsibility to nullify the improperly lodged protest. There can be no doubt that this remains the current professional interpretation, as just about every protest in MLB you read about is, in fact, over a disputed judgment call. The homerun that should have been fan interference in the ALCS game a couple of years ago was protested - protest denied, judgment decision. Last year, the Rangers protested a balk call. Bzzzzt. One other reason the umpire should not attempt to deny a protest on the field is because umpires' rulings frequently (hell, almost always) involve both judgment and rule application. Sometimes, it's not completely clear whether the argument is over the umpire's judgment, or his interpretation of the applicable rule. Rather than hash that out on the field, it's better and fairer to let a protest committee sort through the facts and resolve the matter. Infield fly rule is a good example of a rule that has equal parts judgment and rule application, and depending on how the umpire describes his decision making process, what appeared to be a judgment call could have indeed been a misapplication of the rule. This situation (coach demanding to protest a judgment call) is best summed up with the old joke about the guy who took his wife camping and deer hunting, and then the next morning, hearing a gunshot followed by loud arguing, he ran to the scene and saw his wife holding her gun on a terrified park ranger with his hands up, saying "OK, lady, OK. He's your deer. But at least let me get my saddle off of him." In this situation, let the coach have his deer. Then use his protest fee to treat the protest committee to beer and pizza. <hr color="blue"> I believe the reasoning here is beguiling but erroneous. Here is my rebuttal: Quote:
Quote:
It doesn't make ANY sense to talk about someone "insisting" (sic) unless at least their first attempt at a protest has been rejected for some reason. If such an attempt HAS been rejected, then by whom and under what authority if not by the umpire on the field exercising his right under OBR 4.19 to REJECT the protest? Quote:
1. If he doesn't know - do not accept the protest 2. If he explains an objection to a judgement call - do not accept the protest 3. If he explains an apparent rule misapplication - discuss it with your partner(s) and if you agree you are correct, or you cannot agree on an alternative correct ruling, accept the protest. Otherwise, change the ruling. 4. If you AND your partners aren't sure - accept the protest. The chances of coming across the situation in item 4, where both you AND your partner(s) aren't sure, ought to be very, VERY rare. That may not be the case in LL Inc, however, so I fully understand Mr Konyar's ruling. I also understand the MLB professional ruling as it affects paying fans in MLB ball parks. There is an awful LOT of ground between those two positions, both amateur and professional, and I strongly suggest that in that no-mans-land OBR protests are best handled by abiding by the provisions of OBR 4.19 and 9.02(b). Cheers, |
Happy Happy Joy Joy
I note there was some EDITING going on... maybe all for the better. Here is a "G" rated "counter" Note I cannot "quote" because I do not read WW posts. I know what it says, however.
ACCEPT ALL Protests, where the manager insists! After all,WHY NOT?? There is NO down side, none. And there are a host of potential problems if you don't. PLease do not confuse the cases of a GAme under protest, and what will happen when the protest is considered. If Manager protests in the 3rd inning because he says my hat is ugly... SO WHAT?? Ok, fine. Duly noted, now lets play. The world will go on in the EXACT SAME MANNER as if I told the manager, "NO YOU CANT PROTEST!" Again, I simply, say, so why not accept. It makes NO difference. I use this silly example to make a point. I help train umpires (I think that sound you just heard was WW, and others Ralphing!) but I digress. We cover this point. I tell them, it is not up to them to ascertain if a protest if technically proper for reason. Accept and move on (see CONDITIONS BELOW). Because it would be MUCH worse for an umpire to be pigheaded about NOT allowing, and NOT allow, and then find out eventually that the protest MAY have been valid.. in other words..the umpire was wrong. I simply content that there is no reason to take that chance. NOTE: Cases of protest TIMING.. well, absolutely DO NOT ACCEPT. Play happens... 2 pitches later here comes coach who wants to protest my interp of the PLAY. Sorry coach, no can do...I do teach this. This one you don't accept. But, silly example #2. I call sliding runner OUT at 2nd on tag play. Coach argues (nicely of course). Says GET HELP...I decline, "Bosco, I saw it clearly!" Coach argues, I protest! UH? Why, I ponder. Coach, you know you can't protest my judgement call! Uh, yeah, but it's Tuesday, and you have to call runners SAFE at 2nd on Tuesdays, its in the book! So I protest. OK, this is really a stupid case... because, being the most excellent official, I would TALK this guy OUT of this protest... BUT, IF HE INSISTS (in other words, he (coach) is a total moron) then we will take the 30 seconds to make the notation and CONTINUE. The moron coach will be dealt with by his authorities. Let's be clear about reality here. How many times in the last 5 years have I heard.. "I protest!" MANY... How many times does a the game actually get PLAYED under protest (officially)? Practically none. Because we can, and should, talk them OUT of it by explaining the righteousness of our position, since we are, of course, right. Mike Branch Member EWS |
Ooops, point of order
Quote:
Point of order and typing saver. I never said this, I would NEVER advocate such. As my other note tries to indicate: YES ABSOLUTELY you try to SQUASH a protest over judgment calls. Of course!! But after every attempt is made to get Bosco the Moron Coach to see that that his protest won't fly... and he absolutely INSISTS... then note it, and play. Mike B EWS |
Apparently the quote attributed to Konyar is either misunderstood or some judgement was passed on the umpire asking the question.
The directive as was given to the group at the Eastern Region clinic this weekend was that the umpire is to decide the validity of the protest. Anything that goes directly from the field to the books to the protest committee must have been done by umpires who know nothing. Accept the protest if it is indeed valid, decline it if it's not, it's not a difficult issue, some people just don't understand the rules so they take shortcuts. It must be incredibly embarassing for the umpire who allows a protest because a senior league bat was used in a little league game, the batter hit a home run and won the game. Then the umpire wipes the runs for illegal equipment. I highly doubt Konyar would let that stand because it's obviously not the right ruling and should have been fixed on the field or at least with a call to the UIC, DUIC or DA. |
I was one of the folks on eTeamz arguing that the umpire i fact MUST accept a protest (as opposed to SHOULD), mainly because, as BJ pointed out, the umpire may be wrong.
It seems to me, that if the umpire gets to decide whether or not to accept a protest, that the potentially guilty party is making the decision as to whether he's guilty or not (Sorry officer, you can't give me that speeding ticket, I've decided I'm not guilty.) Not a good thing I think. 4.19 allows a protest when the manager claims a decision is in violation of the rules. As long as he claims violation (right or wrong) he apparently has the right. In addition, I would argue that the 4.19 statement " . . the decision of the League President shall be final." means that an umpire is not empowered to make the final ruling as it would usurp a power specifically granted to the LP. Which leads to "OK, I'm protesting on the grounds that your refusal to accept my protest is a violation of the rules, specifically 4.19 which states that the LP gets the final decision, not the umpire." I think LL and Pro have it right, accept it and get on with the game. |
Quote:
I think it's clear Warren is also right: There's a pragmatic reason. The fans don't want to sit around for 10 minutes while the umpire and skipper argue whether the "event" is subject to protest. But at the amateur level, <b>if the protest is free</b>, I would spend the time educating the managers. Otherwise, I say "He's out," and the manager comes to lodge an official protest. I can see a game where Team Blue files 61 protests, ranging from my hat through unshined shoes to that called third strike, while Team Red files 41 protests (they won by 10) on much the same subjects. But one thing I don't understand at all. Someone wrote he never said he would not try to talk a skipper out of a protest. But in that same post he says, "Accept the protest and get on with it." Isin't that a distinction without a difference? |
Carl wrote: "It's clearly against the rules to accept a protest on a judgment call. There's little question that Warren is right there: 'No protest shall ever be permitted on judgment decisions by the umpire.'"
I have no problem with the notion that no protest be GRANTED on judgement calls. While the rule says no protest is to be accepted on judgement calls, it doesn't say by whom. There is a school of thought that says the umpire has the right of refusal. There is another that says that they don't, and a third that says they shouldn't. Of course, 4.19 says the league sets the procedure so one should really find out what the leagues position is first and follow it. I just think that, absent a league procedure and as the final decision has been granted to the LP, that it must be permitted to reach him to make the decision that is clearly his. |
Quote:
Permit: To afford opportunity or possibility for. Grant: To concede; acknowledge Now I freely admit there are other definitions that somewhat blur the distinction. (grin) Still and all, the idea of "permit" means "to allow" in the OBR and protests are NOT allowed on judgment calls. By the book now. Right? [Edited by Carl Childress on Feb 19th, 2001 at 01:18 PM] |
I was raised by a lawyer (didn't follow in the footsteps) so I learned to argue that the words mean what you want them to mean :-) Gotta be an advocate for your cause!
I don't think either of us is going to change our mind though. p.s. Speaking of words, check out the eUmpire articles - I think there's an "allude" where the intent was "elude" |
Quote:
|
Darn - thought I hit the "s" - typing isn't a strong suit.
Article: "Pick a Zone, Any Zone - Part III" - 1st Sentence - shouldn't "alluded" be "eluded?" |
Re: Ooops, point of order
Quote:
Cheers, |
Quote:
Quote:
The underlying principles are these: 1. The appeal to protest has to be appropriate under OBR 9.02(a) and 9.02(b) 2. The appeal to protest has to be made at the appropriate time under OBR 4.19 3. The umpire has to be given the opportunity to correct a rule misapplication on the diamond under OBR 4.19 and OBR 9.02(c) Simply forwarding everything along denies these proper steps, and means EVERY protest will ultimately be heard by a league president, or his protest committee, when not every protest <i>should</i> be heard by that official under the rules. The rules have <b>delegated</b> some of the league president's authority to the umpire on the field. He MUST be allowed to exercise that authority and reject inappropriate appeals. If an umpire will CHEAT on his responsibility here, then he will cheat elsewhere as well. That is a much bigger problem for an assignor than an umpire simply being mistaken over the nature of a protest. Even the "mistaken" official will be under scrutiny thereafter. It just wouldn't be worth the risk of losing what we enjoy doing and getting paid for. Cheers, [Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 19th, 2001 at 06:18 PM] |
Yep
Yes Rich, it should be. I had already asked for the correction last week prior to the article being posted, but apparently it was overlooked. I will ask again.
GB |
Quote:
|
Warren, I didn't mean to imply that an umpire would cheat on his responsibility. But I've encountered too many who don't know the rules. I don't know if I'd want to trust their ability to judge whether it's a rule violation or a judgement call.
The participants on this, and the other boards are experienced folks who know what's going on. I'd be happy to have any of them umpire one of my games. But because you are experienced, and generally do higher level games, you lose sight of those of us at the lower levels. We're in a different world. My experience is pretty much centered around LL age leagues, tournamants, etc. I've seen a LOT of protestable calls. I only actually protested one 'cause it was so idiotic (Ol Smitty called "That's four fouls, you're out" - guess who won that one.) I've had an association ump call a foul ball on a ball hitting third base and then tell me "sorry, I was thinking of the high school rule." I've had runners called out for leaving too soon. I had another association ump tell me I had to remove a pitcher instead of moving him to another position. I've had IFs denied because the ball came down on camped infielders who hapened to be a couple of feet onto the outfield grass. I've had runners called out for running out of the baseline when the nearest fielder didn't even have the ball etc. etc. etc. I'd hate to have one of these guys get the idea that they could/should/must deny a protest. |
Quote:
Between LL level competition and the MLB Pro's there is a whole LOT of territory that needs to be covered. Hopefully it is being covered mostly by accredited officials who can at least tell the difference between a judgement decision and a rule misapplication, most of the time. Maybe not. I'm certainly willing to declare that MOST of the umpires I work with could be trusted with this decision. The ones who couldn't are always allocated with a more trusted official. Cheers, |
Re: Happy Happy Joy Joy
<i> Originally posted by BJ Moose </i>
<b> "ACCEPT ALL Protests, where the manager insists! After all,WHY NOT?? There is NO down side, none. And there are a host of potential problems if you don't". </b> Moose we do not want to make games longer than they already are. In the Pre-Game I do not know about you, but I <b> STRICTLY </b> tell all the coaches, <i> Don't bother coming out on judgement calls. </i> Look what could happen. First Pitch you call <b> STRIKE </b>, Manager says hey blue I think that was a ball - I want to protest. Nex't pitch a kid hits a screamer down the third base line that hits the leftfield chalk and you point fair, coach says hey blue that's foul I want to protest. I personally do not allow any Judgement Protests, and I believe the rulemakers knew what they were doing when they put in the appropriate rule regarding such calls. They do not pay me by the hour and allowing a coach to protest a judgement call simply adds needless time to the game. Pete Booth |
Warren, I didn't mean to imply that an umpire would be unethical in his interpretation. Sorry if you took it that way. I have, however, over the last 28 years, encountered umpires who don't understand the difference between rules and judgement. As a manager it's frustating. As a league official it means having to deal with an angry manager and getting the UIC to educate the potential offender.
We can all read 4.19 and see it different ways as it leaves room for such variations. I view this from two of the three perspectives - manager and league officer/director. I think the rule means that, as the league president (or protest committee) has the final authority, that he is the one who determines a protest's validity - thus he has to get it to make a ruling. At the youth/volunteer level it also provides a healthy, albeit time consuming way, for frustratios to be vented, and can be beneficial to all the participants. I also interpret the rule to mean that if a manager claims a violation he can file a protest - period - foolish as it may be. I understand the position of the experienced umpire, who truly does know that it will not be a successful protest, that he doesn't want to go through the trouble. I can also understand why an umpire will believe that the "accept a protest" concept applies to him. After all, if he can convince the manager that it is not a protest situation, very well and good; he's most likely right; it'll save everyone time and the manager some embarrassment and maybe cash. |
Quote:
"Protest - If a manager claims that an umpire has misapplied a rule, he can file a protest. A manager cannot protest an umpire's judgment (i.e., his decision of a ball or strike, safe or out, fair or foul, etc.), but if such manager perseveres in his demand to protest, an umpire should accept it." |
Quote:
Sounds to me like, "Humor the manager before chunking him," rather than, "You must accept the protest." To me, anyhow. |
Too true....
Quote:
As you know, at your prompting I made a point elsewhere that noting/accepting an invalid protest is far preferable to ejecting the manager. In the case we discussed, the ejection issue was only raised because the manager had refused to allow his team to continue playing, even after the protest was rejected. I read that as objecting to the original judgement decision that he wanted protested. Besides, I hoped by ejecting the manager for dissent that his assistant might be more amenable to bringing the team back onto the diamond, rather than having to forfeit the game as things eventuated. I see the following in order of the umpire's resorting to them: 1. Reject the protest where possible 2. Note/Accept the invalid protest if necessary 3. Eject the manager if unavoidable 4. Forfeit the game as the last resort. Please don't ANYONE think I am advocating this course in terms of the game situation which started this thread. This is only a GENERAL guideline for the use of these tools, in the listed order. Cheers, |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jim Porter
Quote:
Most leagues CHARGE for a protest.. or would have some ways to take care of the idiot coach who actually DID insist on protesting my judgment call. It can only happen once. But in the real world... In 10 years and a couple zillion games.. I have NEVER had the coach actually INSIST on protesting after my calm and cool explanation to him as to why he was wrong, and I was right, and its a judgment call anyway. They always acquiesce. I've had a few protests, sure, coaches INSISTING, due to their mistaken view of a rule.. Fine, noted! (Time elapsed, 30 seconds). And what the heck.. I have never been on the wrong end in a protest. (or at least I have been SAVED by the offended team winning! (thankgod!)) I've even had the games where the situation was SO CONVOLUTED and MARTIAN, that I ADVISED both sides to protest, because I didn't have a CLUE what to do. (I think this was a courtesy runner being abducted by the Megatroid ship during playing action, but he missed 2nd). Mike Branch Member EWS |
Mike,
I align myself with no group. I did not post the Jaksa/Roder entry, but I knew about it. I think there has been positive input on both sides of this issue. I believe Warren has outlined all the exact reasons why we try like the Dickens to avoid a protest on our judgment. His advice should be followed. I believe others have also provided good arguments as to why we should accept a protest if a manager perseveres before sending him to the parking lot. What I was attempting to point out was that it is not a "must" accept situation. The rules are clear that we do not have to accept such protests on our judgment. But the advice from Jaksa/Roder, and other such sources (I believe Jim Evans is another,) is that discretion is the better part of valor. Don't chunk him, humor him. Warren doesn't disagree with this notion. He agrees. What he disagrees with, and I do too, is that we are somehow bound by rule to accept frivilous protests. We are not. That can be important. Sure, we humor the manager the first time around. But the second time and beyond, in order to keep control over the game, we <b>should</b> refuse his frivilous protest and put him out of our misery. Else, we'd be accepting frivilous protest after frivilous protest, and the game would be delayed, and the spectators would get ugly, and it would all end with some team deciding not to take the field in protest. That should be avoided. Where I live, there's no such thing as a protest fee. I haven't had a single protest make it to committee in almost 21 years of umpiring. The few times the "P" word was used, I was able to end it right there on the spot. I think this issue is far less imortant than everyone is making it out to be in this thread. After reading a good number of posts by so-called EWS members (what does that mean, anyhow?) and eUmpire.com writers like Warren, and Garth, somwhere along the line y'all stopped listening to each other and started talking past each other. In my opinion, <b>everyone</b> needs to listen just a little more often. |
Quote:
Of course not.. I would never want to join any club that would have me as a member!! :) You are EWS in spirit! But you could never afford the dues, and may have problems with the initiation! :) I better say some baseball stuff...uh...oh yeah: Jackets... tucked or not tucked?? And is it "legal" to tuck in your jacket?? Mike Branch Member, Founder EWS |
George Brett's Pine Tar Homerun
Quote:
|
I think the pine tar incident is a special case; the Royals may have protested because they believed the penalty did not coincide with the intent of the rule, and the AL president agreed.
I suppose an analogous situation (strictly off the top of my head) would be such -- 11-12YO kids playing on a large field (300' down the line). Outfield almost playing on the edge of the infield dirt. Batter hits a fair ball down the line, rolls down the warning track and under a gate down in the corner. BR would have easily had an inside-the-park HR had the ball stayed in play. Umpire correctly ruled ground-rule double, and manager protests, claiming that the award (2 bases) does not coincide with the level of ball. Of course, the protest committe agrees with the manager and upholds the protest. The umpires got the call right, but the protest committee felt the rule should be changed. Although I agree with the Pine Tar ruling (since I am a Royals fan), that's a bad precedent to set, especially at the amateur level. Dennis |
Long Ground Rule Doubles
Quote:
|
Re: Long Ground Rule Doubles
Quote:
Unfortunately, I was placed in this position a few years ago. The manager thought it was crazy to give a kid a ground-rule double on such a large field, and he convinced me to rule such. At the time I thought I was doing the right thing, but now I realize that's not how to resolve seemingly "unfair" rules. I wouldn't have put it past the manager to cry foul and ask the tournament directors for a ruling, and knowing some of them they would have ruled it a ground-rule triple. Isn't it somewhat "unethical" to change a rule during a season? I realize the penalty for the pine tar was somewhat unjustified, but couldn't they have told Brett "Tough shit" and make the change during the off-season? If the league president/commissioner can decide to change this some August afternoon, what's to stop him from making balks a two-base award? Dennis |
Lower Level Exceptions & Supporting MLB Umps
Quote:
In my opinion this is exactly what was happening in the long thread on the "legality" of the reversal of judgement calls. |
As much as I hate the thought of agreeing with Warren, I at times feel compelled to. This is one of those (few) times. (grin)
Fed Casebook 1.4.2 references situation whereby "The umpire informs the coach that a protest for such reasons will not be considered....." This is casebook example of umpire making decision on the field whether to accept or not accept protest. I would also tend to agree with J/R (not to be understood as putting you in same class now, Warren) not to belabor the issue. If coach gives continuing grief, I will likely accept his protest for sake a game continuity. Just my opinion, Steve Member EWS |
<b>DDonnelly19 (qooted):
"....At this level, no matter how hard the ball is hit, any batter's going to get at least 3B since the fielders would need to run at least 150' to get to the ball. I can see a ground-rule triple being justifiable at this level on such a large field...."</b> Sometimes down here in Texas we have to go out to the boonies to some not so large towns to handle these country games. <b>One guy brought back this situation: </b> Bases loaded, bottom 7th with home team down 3 runs. Playing in the boonies with no outfield fence and a farm in the distance. Batter cranks one to left center that must have flown 400 ft. in the air and would still be rolling if a pig hadn't picked up the ball and ate it !!!! Not a fielder within 150 ft when pig ate the ball. <b>What's your call ???</b> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ump called---- " INSIDE THE PORK HOME RUN " How do we get on these subjects? Steve Member EWS |
Apples v Oranges II
Quote:
142 above refers to a protest that is made in VIOLATION of TIME of PROTEST rules. And it is, of course, correct. The proverbial, "Sorry, Coach, it is TOO LATE for you to protest that now!" Some of the other discussion was the question of the Umpire making an onfield decision as to the validity of a protest as to its Judgment v Interpretation. Ex. 2. (I had this last season). Coach (former Major League Player!!) had a disagreement with me over a play on a batter. (I was, of course, right). He REALLY thought I was wrong. He returns to dugout. Two pitches are thrown to next batter. 1-1 count. TIME! He goes to mound.. then comes back to me and announces. "Mike, I'm going to protest this game, I don't think you got that play right." OOOPS, Sorry,BUZZZ...Aaaaaaaak. Thank you for playing!! Here are some lovely parting gifts. :) "Uh, Dave, you can't protest! It is too late!" Now in this case he just left and fumed. IF he had INSISTED... then I would have refused and eventually tossed him. (I need to get my EJ #s up....I'm too mild mannered). Mike Branch Member EWS |
Re: Apples v Oranges II
Quote:
According to your reasoning, we should: -accept a protest on the grounds of umpire appearance (skipper didn't like your hat) -eject a manager when he realizes one pitch too late that you just awarded 2 bases on a balk Care to elaborate on this, Mike/Moose? Dennis |
Re: Re: Apples v Oranges II
Quote:
Sometimes one posts as THEY would do. And sometimes one posts as they would advise others to do. And sometimes one posts as they believe things should be done. And sometimes (horrors!) persons post axioms, that later are shown to be... uh... I never said you MUST ACCEPT a protest. I simply advice (to the legions who follow) that it is best for ALL concerned, and might save your bacon, if you just ACCEPT the idiot coach protest. (The HAT example). It's easier and quicker. And I want to look out for the lurkers and the less experienced.. Meaning, do we REALLY KNOW what the coach is protesting. 100% sure? Perhaps it appears he is questioning judgment but in actuality its some secret rule. Lowest Common Denominator, why take the risk.. Note the protest, move on. The protest commitee will sort it out. Because look at the converse. The poor umpire, who mistakenly reads the platitudes of _______, then assumes that he must make this decision about the coaches protest. Ump REFUSES to allow the protest.. and then, after the fact, we find that this coach had a VALID beef, the protest should have been allowed. This is the worst case.. why take the chance. Now your example above is a bit skewed. I (me) may NOT allow the coach to protest my hat.. because I know with absolute certainty what would be the result.. but, what the heck, I'd rather have the boob coach pay the fee and look stupid, so accept...... AND come on.. your time example?? I would NEVER (being perfect that is), have awarded two bases on a balk...but if my evil Twin Skippy did.. we'd give that coach a LONG LONG rope to beef.. He won't get to protest (again, we know 100% sure he can't).. but unless he calls me a @#%%^ or a %#$^&, he'll hang around.....I deserve it right.. I @#T^ up. Remember.. in my orig example the EX PRO player was 100% wrong and I was right. Mike Branch Member EWS |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:00pm. |