|
|
|
Thu Jul 07, 2005, 10:48am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree with the ruling. R1, who has already scored, now has they duty to stay out of the play - other than to indicate slide or stand to R2 if R2 decides to go home. R1 was able to put one foot in front of the other - and did that intentionally - I'd be inclined to look at R1's actions as intending to walk where she did - and that's intent. But, with either of the 8.7 articles, R2 is out on the interference.
__________________
Steve M 
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
