Mon Jan 30, 2006, 09:34am
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Layton, Utah
Posts: 109
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by Skarecrow
I agree with all that it is intent #1, but I don't believe that situation #3, taunting, can fit in the definition of Article 1--there is no striking--therefore, you cannot have a flagrant fighting rule....striking is required....
|
Not true. If you taunt, and B1 retaliates by fighting, you are also charged with fighting.
|
Bob: I agree with that under Article 2....I didn't see that, but my comment was that it did not fit under Article 1...thanks for the clarification....Skarecrow
__________________
I love to mate.....Chess, The Kings Game
|
Threaded Mode
