Here's the sitch:

Count is 3 and 1.
No outs.
No one on base.

Pitcher pitches, and the ball is right in there, "steeerike" sez the blue.

Catcher, thinking it's the third strike, throws the ball to F5. F5 tosses it back to the pitcher. Oh. That's only TWO strikes. All right.

But now, before the next pitch, offsensive coach says to blue "that's ball four". Why?

Look at this (ISF rules):
"Rule 6, Sec. 7. THE CATCHER.
. . .
b. Shall return the ball directly to the pitcher after each pitch, including after a foul ball.

NOTE: An additional ball shall be awarded to the batter.

EXCEPTION: This does not apply
1. After a strikeout, or
2. When the batter becomes a batter-runner, or
3. When there are runners on base, or
4. When a foul ball is fielded close to the foul line and the catcher throws to any base for a possible out, or
5. When, on a checked swing on a dropped third strike situation, the catcher throws to first base to retire the batter-runner. "

And the exception cases did not apply.

The blue did NOT want to call it ball four. His reasoning was simple logic: The pitch was a good pitch, the defense did not get any advantage by throwing the ball to F5, and so why should there be ball 4?

The offense lost the game by one run, and the game was protested.

What do y'all think?


Shmuel

The blues lose in the protest.
The rule clearly states that it is a ball charged when not returnded to the pitcher in this case.
I have seen some good teams burn themselves on this in the past.

A little preventive umpiring would go a long way in this situation. An umpire on the ball, may ask the catcher why s/he threw the ball to F5. If the catcher states that s/he thought it was strike three, no penalty. If the catcher gives any other answer than that, ball four would be the call.

Granted, this isn't always going to be the first thing on the umpire's mind, but I guarantee you that I, as the umpire, will be thinking to myself, "Why did the catcher throw the ball there?" I will probably also be checking my indicator to see the count and may even take a glance at my partner for confirmation of the count. If I can just remember to verbalize my question to the catcher, I'll have it covered.

Oh, and what about the original call by the blue? The pitch was indeed right in there, and the call was a good call, at least from that point of view.

Is the count now 4 and 2, or 4 and 1? OK, it doesn't make a difference here. But say the same situation with the beginning count 2 and 1, or better, 2 and 2?

If you did follow the letter of the rule, then it would
be ball four
because of the catchers actions.

What happens after the pitch is irrelevant to the pitch itself as long as it was not declared an illegal pitch.

[/B][/QUOTE]

A little preventive umpiring would go a long way in this situation. An umpire on the ball, may ask the catcher why s/he threw the ball to F5. If the catcher states that s/he thought it was strike three, no penalty. If the catcher gives any other answer than that, ball four would be the call.

Granted, this isn't always going to be the first thing on the umpire's mind, but I guarantee you that I, as the umpire, will be thinking to myself, "Why did the catcher throw the ball there?" I will probably also be checking my indicator to see the count and may even take a glance at my partner for confirmation of the count. If I can just remember to verbalize my question to the catcher, I'll have it covered.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Irish, I have to disagree. The rule says you award ball 4. That's what you award. It doesn't matter what the catcher THOUGHT. It matters what he or she DID. What the catcher DID was violate a rule that has a specific penalty attached. The penalty is assessed, and hence, ball 4.

lee,

I totally agree with you in this situation.

Just a DC.

Have to agree with Lee on this one. Actually happened to me at the 18-U Gold nationals this year. Catcher threw to F5, thinking it was strike three, when it was only strike two. Count prior to pitch was 3-1, and I even vocalized count prior to pitch. After I awarded ball four to batter, defensive coach came out of dugout, but F2 stopped him by saying, "Coach, that was my bad. Thought it was strike three." Coach just smiled, turned around and went back to dugout.

Serg

I'm with Mike on this one (Oh, wow, heart attack :D).

I'm going with the spirit of the rule rather than the literal interp. It is obviously intended to keep the game moving. It has a penalty that is based on a player's deliberate action to delay the game. I don't see applying the penalty for a mistake.

Mike talked about checking your indicator, or with your partner, or the scoreboard if it exists. Are we sure that we have previously made the count clear? We can also check the player. If she comes out from behind the plate with exuberant action and probably a cheer, then she thinks that she just got an out. I am going to bring her back to earth with a “Hold it Catch, that’s only two strikes!”

If, however, her actions are routine and I discover that she doesn’t know the rule, then she gets the penalty. Now she knows the rule, and we’ve done our little bit of teaching for the day. She won’t do it again.

WMB

OK,

I know this is going to get some reaction, however,

Why is this rule any different? If violated, call it.

We have always said the onus is on the catcher in D3K
situations. Why would we treat this any different? It
is an illegal pitch penalty. We all agree they should be
called when detected.(illegal pitches)

All associations list this as an illegal pitch.
ASA 6-7 Effect
AFA Sec 9-16
USSSA 7-2B Pen
NCAA 10-16
NFHS 6-3-3 Pen
ISF 6-7

Is this to be considered, "no harm - no foul"?

WMB, I don't know what to say about that... the spirit of the rule? Are you going to say that Bobby Brown was right in ruling that the pine tar bat wasn't a violation and that Brett shouldn't have been called out? I'm sorry, but it didn't matter if the umpire calls the count out or not... just as in the IFF rule, it's the situation that determines the rule, not the call.

If you refer to the NFHS rule book, the rule comes under 6-3, which is titled, "violations by catcher". It doesn't mention delay. There are other violations which specifically come under the Delay topic in the index, and this ain't one of 'em.

(I'm disagreeing with WMB? One of us must have been smoking some of that wacky tobacky)

Look at it this way.

If a batter takes off for 1B on an uncaught 2nd strike and R1 scampers to 3B when F2 throws the ball to F3, that's not ruled interference, right? Why not? Because there is an allowance for an honest mistake by the batter. Do they move the runner back? No, because the runner is permitted by rule to steal the base as long as they do not leave the base prior to the release of the pitch.

I'm not supporting the argument that the umpire be a mind reader. And I'm not absolving the catcher's lack of math ability by allowing such an act to occur more than once. I'm looking for an immediate, honest response from the catcher. It's called preventive umpiring. It is not listed anywhere in the rules, but you hear the term a multitude of times during every umpire clinic or school.

If an umpire is getting a change from the coach and notices that the player he is attempting to put in the game was not eligible. As the umpire, do you expect me to keep quiet and wait for the opposing team to protest? I hope not, because I'm going to stop the coach from doing it.

How many umpires here refuse to take a change or reentry prior to that event actually happening? I hope you all do because if you don't, you can get into trouble. If you see a base coach creeping closer to the line after each pitch, do you wait for something to happen or do you instruct the coach to get back to the box? If you see a new face step up to the plate and hear someone say, "new batter" knowing that you never received a change, do you just let it go or do you ask the batter if he is reporting?

When you see a pitcher warming up, throwing illegally, do you say something, or do you just grin and think, "Boy, I'm going to eat this pitcher for lunch"?

Well, you can certainly rule a ball on the batter in the given scenario, and you can believe me that I am not a fan of the "spirit of the game" or "intent of the rule" arguments unless I was in the room at the convention when it was discussed. However, I am a big fan of preventive umpiring and this is not a matter of the catcher delaying the game (purpose of the rule) or showing off, but believing it was the third strike on said batter. This, in my mind, makes the throw valid.

JMHO,

It would seem to me that "preventive umpiring" stopped at the pitch. I always give the count before each pitch. This is preventive umpiring, in my mind. What you're talking about is AFTER THE FACT She threw the ball in a situation forbidding it. It doesn't say you can't throw to an unmanned base unless you thought you struck her out. You had to acutally strike out the batter. That's the catcher's mistake, we have an illegal pitch. All other rules still apply. It's not what the catcher thought, it is the reality we have to deal with.

You mentioned the scenario where a runner advances while a batter goes to 1st on what she mistakenly thought was a dropped 3rd strike. The advancing runner can stay at the base she stole, due to the fact that the catcher should have known it was only 2 strikes. It's just a bad play on her part. Same thing on the catcher throwing to 3rd. Bad play, illegal pitch.

JMHO

[Edited by TexBlue on Nov 29th, 2004 at 09:19 PM]

By the way, is it an illegal pitch in ASA (including base award)? Because in HS, it's not an illegal pitch... it's a ball on the batter.

More thought fodder;


If F2's return to the pitcher sails wildly over her head, and is retrieved by F8, is this considered a direct return to the pitcher?

"By the way, is it an illegal pitch in ASA (including base award)? Because in HS, it's not an illegal pitch... it's a ball on the batter."

Good catch, Leecedar. IP in ASA, which creates the humorous situation of calling a delayed dead ball, supposedly to give the batter an opportunity to hit the IP. Apparently ASA tried to save text by lumping eight IP's sequentially and then providing a single penalty.

NFHS lists penalties after similiar IP's, so some are delayed dead ball, and some are immediate dead ball. And the one we are discussing is not an IP, but a delay of game call against the catcher.


"If F2's return to the pitcher sails wildly over her head, and is retrieved by F8, is this considered a direct return to the pitcher?"

Way to go, Jel! Screw up the pot a little. Let's take your line a little further. Suppose the return throw is wide of the pitcher and is caught by F4. Now are all the literalists going to penalize? Or will they recognize that the catcher made a mistake (bad throw)? What if the ball comes out of her hand on the throw and rolls onto the infield and F3 comes in and picks it up?

Suppose F2 throws to F5 with R1 on 2B. Is she delaying the game? Or making a play on R1? What if R1 has already started back towards 2B; would you still call that a play? Or call it a delay and issue a penalty?

Seems like you have to leave the rule book in your car and call the game with some common sense.

WMB

Wow. I see I really opened a can of beans here. Kewl, I like beans.

The situation I gave was not in a game I umped or played, but it was in our league last year, between two very competitive teams.

I'll tell you what *I* would have done as PU: I would have called the strike, said nothing on the throw to third, and IF the offensive coach piped up (which he did), protesting the call, I would have called over *both* coaches, showed them the rule in the book, and call a *ball*, remove the strike, making a visible sigh in the process.

I don't see how you can call both a ball and a strike on a pitch. Too weird.

------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I think this rule should be changed. The defense received no advantage on this play, but are nevertheless penalized. Worried about a delay of game? Well then, you can institute a rule that the ball must be returned to the pitcher after each pitch that is not hit (excludes a foul ball, and foul tip) after, say, 5 seconds (10? 15? will take care of a wild pitch), otherwise a ball is called. The other exceptions would apply as well (DTS, 3rd strike, runners on base, etc.) That takes care of the delay, and so what if the catcher throws to third?
-------------------------------------------------------

As for substitutions, I agree with Tex here. I would not say anything, as it is the responsiblity of the defense to catch it. But I *would*, and have, mentioned to the coach to get back in his box. Not only that, but when I've seen a player with a cracked helmet, I called time, and had the player switch the helmet.

I had a game (I was PU) in which a batter ran to first, they tried to get him out, and the ball did not get there in time. BUT he used the white base, not the orange safety base. He should be out, but this is an appeal play, and the defense did not appeal. They didn't notice it. I told the batter later in the game that I saw it, and he was lucky they didn't appeal. Know what he said? "Yea, I know".

Hmmm...you have a book on the field with you???

As for the strike, it would have to stand. It cannot be undone. The penalty, according to your original post, for not returning the ball directly to the pitcher was to have a ball called. So, you are calling the strike on the pitch, and the subsequent ball on the illegal action of the catcher and F5.

[Edited by Skahtboi on Nov 30th, 2004 at 02:52 PM]

Maybe it was LL....They want you to carry you book. I always
wondered how many actually do when calling LL.

Yes, I carry a book around. It's not that hard. Download the PDF, print it out in small print, exclude the index and the beginning parts about the "federation", and keep it in a plastic wrap in my back pocket. Coaches have a book, too.
"People of the book" indeed.

This is ISF rules, men's fastpitch. Players are anywhere from 16 to 60 y/o, and the league is in an independent (ie, not school) framework.

Are you sure about calling both a strike <b>and</b> a ball on that pitch? It just doesn't make sense to me.

As for the other questions about "what if the catcher overthrows to the pitcher", etc. It should be obvious to the PU what the catcher's intent is. This is a fundamental umpiring skill, or rather, art.

Shmuel

My last thoughts on this...

Look in the 2004 Case Book. PLAY 6F.7-2

This ASA and NFHS stuff is all fine and dandy, but we are not speaking of those sanctioning bodies, are we?

You are not calling a ball and a strike on the SAME pitch. The strike is a result of the pitch. The ball is a result of a violation of ISF Rule 7.5.g.

Two different events.

Hell,

I am not sure any more....It started out ISF....But most judge it the same way... In NFHS it is just not an IP.

I despise the rule in question. Count of 2 and 2. Batter checks swing on a ball in the dirt and starts running to 1B, thinking she might be called for the swing. PU calls ball but immediately points to BU for opinion. BU gives "safe" signal. As this is going on, F2 throws the ball to F3.

By rule, call is ball 3, then ball 4 on the throw to 1B.

As I say, I despise that rule.

Greymule,

Not in the way you presented your situation.

To properly receive help from your partner, you should remove
your mask as you step out from behind the catcher and point to
your partner. To me, this kills are all actions. Time out, is
implied in this situation. Therefore catchers throw means nothing.

JMHO

Well, I didn't know that checking with your partner during a live ball automatically created a time out. To me, the faster you can resolve a checked swing the better, <i>especially</i> when the ball is still live and both runners and fielders need to know the call.

However, you can remove that from the situation. You still have a catcher operating in a fully legitimate belief that there's a play and being penalized for doing so.

I think of this rule as similar to the one for calling a strike on a batter who steps out of the box between pitches. It is a rule you don't invoke unless you have to, like calling a ball for an extra warmup pitch.

Three and two count. No one on. Batter swings at a low pitch and barely ticks the ball. The catcher scoops it after it hits the ground. The batter runs to first and the catcher throws to F3. Call ball 4 on the batter because the catcher threw a foul ball to a fielder other than the pitcher.

Three and two count. Batter pops a foul between F2 and F3. F2 dives but can't get it clean and scoops it. While lying on the ground, F2 flips the ball to F3, standing over her. Call ball 4 on the batter for the catcher's violation.

PS. I see that the ISF rule exempts the checked swing play, but apparntly not the foul ball plays. I can't remember offhand whether ASA is the same. I think it is.

[Edited by greymule on Dec 1st, 2004 at 04:03 PM]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by greymule
Well, I didn't know that checking with your partner during a live ball automatically created a time out. To me, the faster you can resolve a checked swing the better, <i>especially</i> when the ball is still live and both runners and fielders need to know the call.

Not to be aurgumentive here. Mechanics for asking for help on a
check swing or to "remove help, step from behind catcher, and ask partner,
"swing". Out in the open like that and no runners on, I got time.
If there are runners on, then the rule being discussed does not apply.

However, you can remove that from the situation. You still have a catcher operating in a fully legitimate belief that there's a play and being penalized for doing so.

With no runners on?

I think of this rule as similar to the one for calling a strike on a batter who steps out of the box between pitches. It is a rule you don't invoke unless you have to, like calling a ball for an extra warmup pitch.

If I have had to warn the batters a couple of times, then they getting the strike.
If extra warmups are thrown, then call it. Usually in the one minute time frame
between innings, you don't have to worry about this one.

Three and two count. No one on. Batter swings at a low pitch and barely ticks the ball. The catcher scoops it after it hits the ground. The batter runs to first and the catcher throws to F3. Call ball 4 on the batter because the catcher threw a foul ball to a fielder other than the pitcher.

This is a Case Book play 6F7-2 <i>Bases are empty and B1 has a count of 0-1. On
the next pitch, B1 hits a foul ball that F2 retrieves and throws to F5. Ruling:
A ball is awarded to B1, resulting in a 1-2 count.

Three and two count. Batter pops a foul between F2 and F3. F2 dives but can't get it clean and scoops it. While lying on the ground, F2 flips the ball to F3, standing over her. Call ball 4 on the batter for the catcher's violation.

Could by utilizing the same Case Book Ruling.

Mule, I understand your point. You hate the rule in question. I have come to hate games that can't get completed in the allotted time because girls dilly, dally, have huddles, step out of the box, and go through all of the hystrionics we see in MLB. So, if the poor girls don't get to throw the ball around after a strike out for fear of getting an extra ball called on them (and THAT is the optimum solution for all of this), who's hurt?

As far as the player that thinks that she caught the ball clean off a foul tip in the dirt... let's be real, ok? The catcher KNOWS when she's scooped one. Just because she's trying to sell it doesn't change the fact.

JMHO

Lee

<b>As far as the player that thinks that she caught the ball clean off a foul tip in the dirt... let's be real, ok? The catcher KNOWS when she's scooped one. Just because she's trying to sell it doesn't change the fact.</b>

She knows she scooped it—that's why she threw to 1B—but she may not have realized that it ticked the bat.

This where Blue steps in---"<b>foul ball</b>"

Of course it is. Anytime the plate umpire leaves his position to perform duties other than making a call, play is suspended, no runners may advance or be put out.

Since the play has been called (ball on the batter), I can see where this is not consider calling a play. ISF 10.8.b

Do you allow a runner to keep running to 2nd & 3rd while you are checking with your partner?

Not in ISF Rules!
The exceptions wirtten aou in ISF rules include:
6.7.b.5 When, on a checked swing on a dropped third stike situation, the catcher throws to first base to retire the batter-runner.

And the same goes for the foul ball in 6.7.b.4.

And BTW in ISF this is not an illegal pitch since it states a seperate penalty (award an additional Ball to the batter) and 6.7.b is excluded from the IPs.

And as Mike stated the Ball would be for the illegal action after the pitch!

Raoul

<i>Do you allow a runner to keep running to 2nd & 3rd while you are checking with your partner?</i>

I have never even considered stopping a runner who is already in motion. Especially when I am working with long-time partners, I'll point immediately on a checked swing and get a call. But this is hardly a common play. It's different if the runner is not in motion. Then, yes, the ball is dead.

It would be the same if, after a pitch, the catcher asked me the count and I said, "Two and one," and then the runner ran on the throw back to the mound. Or if as PU I couldn't see whether F9 trapped a ball and got help from PU.

I am aware of the case play, and I admit these are HTBT situations, but I don't see how every form of checking with your partner automatically kills the play.

so if time is out, then how can the runner be retired if your partner calls the strike on the checked swing?

Couldn't you also call a strike on the batter for leaving the batters box? I mean, if the catcher knows they scooped it, then the batter should know that the ball isn't anywhere near bing in play if she barely ticked it.

[Edited by gsf23 on Dec 2nd, 2004 at 12:41 PM]

Even if they are in motion, how will either of you be in position to make a call if the defense makes a play on the moving runners.

If the runner is moving with the pitch and the catcher makes a throw, you are obviously going to wait on the result of that play before going for help.

However, if the runner is going and the catcher chooses to ignore her and asks to get help, the runner is going to get that base ONLY and then I'll go to my partner for help. Even if the call is eventually ruled a strike, if that catcher doesn't hear it, it is her responsibility to follow through with the play.

And, yes, I know different scenarios may call for a different approach.

Why would a batter be awarded a strike for leaving the batter's box?
If you are referring to rule 7-3-C, better re-read it.

Maybe part of this disagreement/confusion stems from the fact that when I work with familiar partners, we often go to each other on checked swings immediately, without being asked by the defense.

We have signals that allow us to check quickly without being obvious about the fact that we're checking. Is it a mechanic or practice that PU cannot ask BU without a request from the defense?

Yes, of course if the defense has asked me to check, there is time out when I proceed to communicate with my partner.

[Edited by greymule on Dec 2nd, 2004 at 04:08 PM]

greymule:

<i>We have signals that allow us to check quickly without being obvious about the fact that we're checking. Is it a mechanic or practice that PU cannot ask BU without a request from the defense?</i>

No. I think that most of us have on occassions. Using
a preset signal is a great idea. Communications is what
really helps when deviating from the normal procedures.

Um, guys? I know I'm the newbie on the block, but I just found the solution to our problem here, at least in NSA and NFHS. It's one thing if F2 is throwing to F5 after a mistaken third strike... that's definitely a ball. However, on all of these plays where she thinks she's trying to get B1 out on a dropped 3rd strike, that comes under NFHS 6-3-2 and NSA 6-5-e. Both rules say, "except...to play on a base runner."

Isn't that what she's doing? Trying to make a play on a base runner? IN MY JUDGMENT (oh how I love those words), yes, and therefore, no violation, no ball four, and we don't have to be ogres.

Lee

<b>Isn't that what she's doing? Trying to make a play on a base runner?</b>

Seems so, but if with 2 strikes the batter ticks the pitch and the catcher, unaware of the foul, scoops the ball and throws to 1B, she has violated the rule, because the batter has technically not become a baserunner. I think we have a case where a rule designed to prevent delays has unintended consequences as strictly interpreted.

Incidentally, doesn't the book use the word "retrieve"? Does scooping up a ticked pitch qualify as "<i>retrieving</i> a foul ball"?

Well, if I'm not looking to be strict, and I'm looking to interpret the rule, I'm saying that the catcher WAS making a play on a runner. Just because, in fact, the person she was making a play on, unbeknownst to her, but knownst to us (yeah, maybe I'm a little punchy today) wasn't in fact a runner, doesn't prevent us from being human.

Besides, if we were rocket surgeons or brain scientists, that would preclude us being umpires, wouldn't it? We'd have the common sense not to stand there and get yelled at. THERE'S a good thread to start... what kind of careers do we Blues have when we're not being abused inside the fences?

Well, since you didn't ACTUALLY start another thread on this topic, I'm declaring this to be as flagrant and glaring a hijack attempt as I've ever seen! :D

Tat's good Tom,

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/joker.gif

Okay, now tell me the difference in allowing a play on a non-existant runner and allowing a throw on a non-existant third strike?

If you are going to presume the catcher "thought" she was doing the right thing in one instance, why is that this "presumption" would not apply to the other?

Stirring up trouble? ;) Maybe!

Okay, now tell me the difference in allowing a play on a non-existant runner and allowing a throw on a non-existant third strike?

If you are going to presume the catcher "thought" she was doing the right thing in one instance, why is that this "presumption" would not apply to the other?

Stirring up trouble? ;) Maybe! [/B][/QUOTE]

Hmmm... are you going to tell me that the Player who is running down the line, complete with uniform, helmet and spikes is non-existent? Is there some difficulty with the space/time continuum at the parks in which you've been umpiring?

Whereas, a strikeout with only two strikes is very much non-existent, except in leagues that have "two strikes and you're out" rules.

What the heck... I've been a wisenheimer since I was a kid, so why quit now?

Lee

Of course the runner is non-existent since, by rule, that player is still a batter and not entitled to advance to 1B, not even accidently. The rule book only protects the misguided batter sans runner when it IS a third strike, but they are not entitled to 1B, by rule.

My point is that in both instances, the umpire is required to presume what just happened. You seem to be willing to forgive a catcher who has forgotten the count, but only if the offense is trying to pull a fast one! What do you do if the batter heads toward the dugout after the second strike and the catcher, thinking it is three, whips the ball to 3B? I'm not doing a thing except putting the batter back in the box.

Hey Mike,
Just tell them you are an ASA umpire, and that you were giving the count. (Nobody will be looking at you, so just quickly stick your fingers in the air.) The ASA rulig was, I believe, that the ball was dead when you are giving the count, therefore the "illegal" throw by F2 was legal because the ball was dead, and F2 was not required to throw the ball directly to F1 on a dead ball!

That will confuse any coaches who are not already confused, justify the no call, and the spirit of the game is intact.

Roger

Here I am trying to be nice and honest and our most judicious member comes up and insinuates that I attempt a cover-up by trying to bamboozle the coaches!

Shame on you, Roger! :)

This whole business, is, I think, a perfect example of when an umpire should use judgement and common sense.

In the case of the count being 3-1, pitch in the dirt, batter having nicked the ball, and the batter running to first (no other runners), and then the catcher throwing to F3, I would *not* call a ball on that one, at least at the outset. I'd just say "foul ball" very loudly, and call the batter back to the box. Now, on the one-hand, the batter is trying to deceive the catcher, which might be technically OK, but it's kinda dirty pool in my book, so I'm not going to give any benefit to the offense. But on the other hand, the strict rule of the law requires that I call a ball in this case. I will call a ball if and only if the offense pipes up and complains about it. This is OK, because they are then appealing what is actually a mis-interpretation of the rules, which they are allowed to do. I will make a visible sigh, point out to the defensive coach that the offensive coach is in fact correct, and say "Ball Four".

However, if we have the same case with the count 3-2, you can safely assume that the batter *and* the catcher thought it was a dropped third strike - I would call "foul ball" (the correct call, btw), and return the batter. Now, if the offense pipes up, I'd say "he didn't know it was a foul ball until I called it". If the offense *still* wants to protest, let him.

The more I see it, the less I like this rule. I think it should be re-written similar to what I posted a few days ago.

Shmuel

"Common Sense"

If it were common we all would have it and the need for these boards would be minimized.