"check feet" call

152 posts / 0 new
Last post

Mort - I can only believe that you "ask them what they're *trying* to tell me " because you are trying to make a point about the CF call - that or you are morbidly obtuse...when your mother told you 'not to put that in your nose' did you ask her which nostril she was speaking of - no you either ignored her (my bet) or you stopped putting the cucumber up your nose.

I (and presumably Dugly) have used CF successfully for years with zero arguments/discussions or any hard feelings on anyone's part. I have also made many an OB call - although most of these are similarily resolved, more than zero of these have resulted in an argument about perspective or some other related issue.

Nope, I'm not trying to make a point about CF on the field (as Temple eludes to, that's not the place, this is)... I'm normally honestly not sure what they really want me to do. I assume they don't think I'm out, or *obviously* they would have called me out... or at least that's what *I* do, so I expect the same from others. So then, what *are* they trying to say?

Bull - someone says check feet you(in the general not the specific) look at your feet - you don't go through some semantic gymnastics to figure out the purpose.

If you actually turned around and asked what do you mean - I would speak very slowlly and say Looook aaaattt yoooooorrrr feeeeeet.

And I would say even slower... "yeah.... so... I'm ... wearing... Gaias... but... are... you.... calling.... me.... out.... or.... did.... I.... run.... out.... because.... looking.... at..... my.... feet.... doesn't... tell.... me.... either."

I just don't understand what looking at my feet tells me about what your or anyone else's perspective is or what you're trying to have me figure out? When I caught the disc 4 steps back, and I'm now somewhere near/past the line... how does looking at my feet or the nearby cones help me figure out what I'm supposed to be doing or what you're telling me?

Seriously, how does looking at my feet help me answer your question (especially when I don't even know what it is...) ?

Maybe since you've posted dozens of responses about how CF isn't a good substitute for "OUT" you've lost a little bit of credibility as to your confusion that you're not sure what people mean?

Seriously, that's like someone saying "OUT is a bad call because it could be confused" your current argument seems to be that CF is dumb because it can be misinterpretted. You damned well better call out "You the catcher have caught the disc Out of Bounds" to minimize that chance. Take for example the following possibilities for "OUT"

a) You caught the disc out of bounds.

b) You ran out of bounds, but if you throw it now you'll be travelling (note I use travelling in the strict sense of the rule, not to imply on your way to some destination).

c) I'm going to force this person out.

d) The keg at the side-line is empty.

e) I want to buy a new Outty - TT, those are slick cars.


In your situation, OB would be just as confusing. I think you're arguing for better communication period, not that CF is a 'unclear' call.

Incidentally, playing with the portable fields on the weekend sure removed a lot of these calls.


Ok so you caught it 4 steps back - so knowing the rules perfectly and apparently sharing GinBohs parralax shift calculation abilities - you'd already be stepping back to the line as I was uttering check feet - once you've reestablished where you were when you'd caught the disc you'd then establish if you were IB or OB at that point....either way I got what I wanted.

Here's a stupid observation, but:

So doing another look through the rules here....

Where does it say that "Out" or "Out of Bounds" are correct calls? If you can't find it, then what you're saying is that people should use YOUR interpretation of "thewaythingsshouldbe"? It could be in there, but I sure didn't see it in the usual places.

So you're adamant that your way things should be is right?

Haha, that's somewhat amusing.

Here's the pertinent rules section (I believe),


XV. G. If it is ever unclear whether a receiver was in- or out-of bounds at the point of making a catch, the player with the best perspective makes the call.


However, this would suggest that if you don't have best perspective, to 'shut-up' as was stated about 3,463 posts ago. But it does leave a call of 'Best Perspective?' up in the air - that is where you could ask if anyone has a better perspective (as you're unclear whether they were in or out).

Hmm, I wonder if there's a call that could easily communicate that you would like to get the opinion of the individual with the best perspective?


--> I think you're arguing for better communication period, not that CF is a 'unclear' call. <--

I think it's both. I think I've been consistent all along that it's better communication that I'm looking for. I'm also suggesting that in *many* cases, CF is unclear.

And sure, I'll absolutely concede that in *many* cases where someone's thrown CF my way, I was pretty sure what they meant and played that way, although I tend to echo back to them what I think they mean. And no arguments ensued. However, I always think that it'd have been better had they told me in the first place.

--> So you're adamant that your way things should be is right? <--

No, of course not. I'm suggesting that this may be one of the many better ways, but *not* that my way is "right". I would also prefer to see empirical evidence that there are more/less 'discussions' with CF versus OUT before I claim definitely that either is the case.

First of all the supposition that "Out" or "OB" is not a call, or is a call that is just as 'invalid'

as "Check Feet" is ridiculous. The fact that the rule doesn't use a word as the call does not

mean there is no call. If you want to get extraordinarily semantic check out XVI.J.2, which


you should shout the name of the rule which would be "OB", "out of bounds", and I don't

think anybody would argue:


What Dug and iamcanuck seem to be missing when they say that "Out" can be just as

confusing, is that "Out" is a call that means the disc is out of bounds. You cannot Call (big-C)

"Out" to mean any of Dug's posibilities other than A). There's no ambiguity in an Out call.

CF can very, very likely be called when somebody means either A) you're out, B) you ran

out, walk it in. How does this not result in a delay/discussion just like an OB (assuming that

somebody heeds the call)?

Why is it a bad thing for somebody to be called OB and have to turn over the disc? I've rarely

seen an OB call get contested, and almost never have seen anybody upset with a BTT after a



"Hmm, I wonder if there's a call that could easily communicate that you would like to get the

opinion of the individual with the best perspective?"

There is no call and there shouldn't be! If there was there would have to be a stoppage, or

other discussion.

Remember that "Check Feet" is not a Call. You cannot ignore a call. If you

had to obey a "Check Feet" everytime it was uttered (if it was a call), then it would be just

as interrupting as an "Out" call.

So what you want is to ask people with the best perspective to make a call, if they can. By

all means say "Check Feet", but understand that what you're saying is equivalent to "Is he

out?", and should require no action from anybody (on a spirit/sportsmanlike or other level).

For Dug (I don't think I've not been answering your questions):

"Do you think that league play is different than tournament play?"

In many, many ways, but not the objective determination of IB/OB. Similar is the discussion

of whether the disc is either caught or not (though this generally has much poorer

perspective). If you see the disc bounce, call it Down, if anybody disagrees, BTT. How is that

not a great way to handle when you see the disc bounce first? How is calling Out not a great

way to handle seeing somebody out (unless you don't mind that people play on after being


"Do you think that there are different levels of contact that might be cconstrued as

"incidental" depending on the skill of the players?"

No. There may be more contact, but it's usually going both ways, and therefore incidental for

any skill level (or

two fouls). If somebody's standing still with their arm raised, about to catch the disc, and the

D lightly pushes their arm so they don't catch the disc, that's a Foul in every level of play (do

you disagree?). If two people are vying for the same spot and disc and are pushing each other

equally, then that either isn't a foul (as it's not affecting one another's play) or it's a foul on


"When someone is going for the disc, and is close to the line, and you know that an OUT call

is going to stop play to 1) determine BEST perspective, 2) determine OUTNESS 3) determine

OUTCOME, and you KNOW that the stoppage, however short will happen. Do you a) ALWAYS

call out, if, in your opinion they're out. b) NEVER call out, even if you believe them to be out.

c) Call CF, and let the play go on."

Sorry, but I will have to duck this one, as I'm not sure what you mean. Actually, I'll try to

answer two of the questions you might be asking. What do you mean? When somebody is OB,

I call

"OB", play stops long enough for that player to see if they're OB, and they either say "I think

I'm In" and it goes BTT, or they drop the disc. This is how it always happens when I'm on the


Now is your question when I see the person *might* be out? If so, I say nothing. There's no

Call or pseudo-call to look for best perspective for a reason. If nobody sees a player OB, then

they're IB.

If you don't play that way, you're slowing the game down an awful lot.

PS: You mis-characterized one of my opinions. I think spirit=sportsmanship. How can you

show respect for somebody if you let them play on OB? Perhaps this is the fundamental

difference in our two standpoints.

Dug, I encourage you to re-read the definition of Spirit of the Game if you don't think it's the

same thing as sportsmanship. Perhaps you will see your view of SOTG may be somewhat

different from what SOTG really is?

Oops, another misstatement by me. I meant to say that Spirit != Nice (not necessarily) in response to your statment about spirit/sportman isn't the same as nice.

Temple, we agree on the key points here, let's not lose track of that.

We agree that poor perspective shouldn't call anything. We agree that CF isn't a "real" call. We agree that the real call is "Out of Bounds" (although it doesn't say htis in the rules, especially since there are many references to Out of Bounds, so that it would be hard to defend that that's the "best call"). We agree thatanyone who says CF shouldn't expect any action out of the reciever (or anyone else).

I'm not entirely sure what else you're trying to say. So I guess we agree!


So what you want is to ask people with the best perspective to make a call, if they can. By all means say "Check Feet", but understand that what you're saying is equivalent to "Is he out?", and should require no action from anybody (on a spirit/sportsmanlike or other level).


I do believe that's all anyone is saying (i.e. check feet = is he/she out?).


What Dug and iamcanuck seem to be missing when they say that "Out" can be just as confusing, is that "Out" is a call that means the disc is out of bounds. You cannot Call (big-C) "Out" to mean any of Dug's posibilities other than A). There's no ambiguity in an Out call.


If you run out, then you're still Out. Someone could easily call out (back to play, turn around see that you're out, etc.) if you ran out of bounds.

I have yet to misunderstand what someone who yells CF means with regards to my field position. I would also say the 'Pick' leads to way more discussion than CF or OB does (in my opinion).


This is the part that I find amazing

"When somebody is OB, I call "OB", play stops long enough for that player to see if they're OB, and they either say "I think I'm In" and it goes BTT, or they drop the disc. This is how it always happens when I'm on the field. "

You must be playing in some super league, when I call someone "out/OB", my experience is more like

A: you're OB

B: I ran out, I'll move back to the line

A: no, you caught it out

B: I did not

A: ok, back to thrower

B: why, i caught it in bounds, can't you see that

A: etc., etc., etc.

B: rebuttal, fine, back to thrower, *internal monologue* you're getting a poor spirit score 'cause you don't know the rules

and as a bit of a rebuttal, which may or may not belong in this thread, I would say that for the majority of players in the VUL, Spirit/Sportsmanship does = nice.

{sigh} ... oh man, I see that all the time on contested calls and quickly turn them to disputed calls. Way too many people take a call as some kind of dastardly personal attack.

Is it possible that a lot of this entire thread is trying to solve only a symptom of the actual problem?

... see the last paragraph of my reply above (#88 in this thread) for more ...


No I'm not plaing in some super league, but I'm playing spiritedly. If what you said is

accurate of your play, you're not.

When you say "No, you caught it out" you're arguing, wasting time, and being the opposite of

a "rule guru". You're saying as much as 'your perspective wasn't as good as mine, while you

believe you know what happened, I am right, and you are wrong. My belief of waht happened

should determine the outcome'. You're disrespecting their equal authority to make a call (or

believe that they had perspective to see the outcome), and that is entirely counter-

productive, not to mention unspirited.

Once you say "Out" and the other person says "I caught it in and ran out" then you've got a

disagreement. BTT is the *only* resolution to that situation, so any further discussion,

sighting down the line, asking other people on either team is

pointless. BTT and Play On.

Trying to convince the person, just wastes time, is pointless, and somewhat unspirited.

If they try to convince you, they're wasting just as much time being pointless and unspirited.

The only thing you need to say is "Ok, I called it out, so let's go BTT."

Yours was a perfect example of how it's people that don't really know the rules that tend to

argue back and forth.

I have to disagree with your last post Temple. While any lengthy discussion should be avoided, a quick discussion seems to help the game and spirit along. I've seen multiple times where a call will be retracted due to extra info (i.e. a foul call jumping for a disc, but it was actually the person's own teammate that made contact, etc.). Is that truly against the spirit of the game? I do agree that if he says 'No, I caught it in" after you mention you believe he caught it out (i.e. not only ran out, but gained possession OB), then BTT.


I disagree on the grounds that you'll almost never, ever, be able to change the outcome with

2 or 3 sentences. 2 or 3 sentences will only encourage longer disagreements. Why bother

wasting the time?

Truthfully, how often do you really change the outcome from BTT, while keeping people


with the resolution, and not taking more than a very short time to do so?

Your example is a poor one to try to illustrate your point, as both people are on the same

team. You can't call a Foul or Violation for an action by and against your own team, so that

point is moot.*

By all means, say what you will while it goes back to make sure the BTT is a smooth

transaction with no hard

feelings (trying for a different outcome is, I feel unspirited and pointless), but try not to slow

the game down if it's not needed by the other player.


* Of course dangerous play is an exception, but really that is quite different from a Foul (as

there's nothing that's going to happen when it's between the same team, just a talking to for

the dangerous player)

Sorry, my example may not have been clear. Multiple people going for disc (O and D), D get's fouled. Calls foul. O, instead of contesting say's "I didn't touch anyone", D says "Someone hit me in the back", other D says "I made contact with someone", original caller says, ok - own team, therefore I retract the call. Total time of conversation <5 sec. No anger, no problem.

This happens quite often when I play (i.e a call is made, a slight clarification, and either BTT or retraction). Not unspirited (trying to get the right result) in my opinion. Maybe I've just been lucky on the field, but never had this type of discussion become extended or lead to bad blood.


If it can be sumed up in two or three lines and everyone agrees great... done this befor worked out just dandy. but otherwise...

Foul! Contest Yes or No? play-on!

Agreed there are possible scenarios where a clarification of the call itself will help. But I


that the vast majority of calls are pretty apparent what the call is. In your clarified situation


one D was contesting a foul that wasn't called on him, because he didn't know what the call


Generally I'd say one shouldn't contest a call before knowing what it is, as that doesn't sound

very spirited to me...

Usually (and thankfully) it's clear what the call is (especially in OB situations), and it's also

usually clear when somebody disagrees. In those situations, further discussion on the field is


PS: Mort, I just noticed that there's no rule that says a foul can only be contested by the


who the foul was called on. I'd always been playing that way, and I can't think of a situation

where you wouldn't want to play that way. Has the SRC looked at that? I'd think a


of what and when you can contest (little-C) and send BTT would be a good idea...

PPS: Yes I'm relishing my official designation as scapegoat.

Hmm... I don't think it's come up at all in any of our discussions. I'll add it to the list to at least do the "is it broken or an issue currently / could it realistically become an issue" vetting with them.

So just to clarify: O catches the disk and is clearly out of bounds from my (best) perspective. I, having not read this forum discussion, call "check feet" which has been pretty common up to this point and is usually interpreted as "look at your feet and look at the cones, I think you are out". So, because I didn't call "OB" it is fine for the O to cheat and continue on a technicality even though they know perfectly well I think they were out?

I should point out that my mark said "you should have called OB... there's a lengthy forum on the topic" right after the out-of-bounds catcher stated she knew where her feet were and they continued play.

What irks me is that they KNEW... KNEW I thought she was out of bounds but continued anyway because according to the almighty forum I hadn't said the right words. In the words of Scottish golfer in a Bugs Bunny cartoon: "That's a dirrrrrrty bit o' cheatin'"

How is their play anything but poor spirit regardless of the semantics of the call?


If you call check feet when you know they're out of bounds, how do they know they're out of bounds? They could very well have thought they were in bounds, and hence the play-on. Not cheating, simply a poor decision on your part to 'hand-off' the best perspective to someone else. If they're OB, call OB.

Now if they knew they were OB, and played on, then yes it's cheating. Our sport requires self-officiating, so someone is OB when they're OB, not when someone else calls it.


Patrick, no one has said it is fine for the O to cheat (or for anyone to cheat). The player with the best perspective is expected to make the call regardless of which team they're on. If you know that a player is out of bounds, then you call OB. And if you don't know for sure if they're in or not, then why do you call them cheaters...

Was my post unclear? I had the best perspective and I thought the O was out. I, without the benefit of this forum, called "check feet" and made it clear I thought the O was out. They made it clear to me they knew I thought they were out, then continued to play because I had not called "OB" or "out" or "out of bounds". Yes, I said the wrong words. No, there was no ambiguity: I thought they were out from my best perspective and they KNEW I thought they were out. Continuing to play on a "technicality" (my wrong words) is cheating.


This sounds very similar to an incident from our game last night. If the similarity is complete coincidence, forgive my assumptions and treat this post as a useful anecdote.

Actually, there is one difference between Patrick's account and the incident from our game: in our game, the O player did not "know" she was OB. I'm not sure how a D player would determine that unless he was a certified psychic or the O player admitted she was cheating. Telling a player that they have to call "OB" if they think a play is OB does not imply that the play was OB - it's simply an attempt to educate the O player on the appropriate call according to the rules.

I'll set the scene from my perspective:

(1) disc is caught by O1 inside, on, or outside sideline

(2) O1 sees good upfield pass and rips it immediately to O2 while D1 mutters "check feet"

(3) disc is caught by O2

(4) O2 makes short pass to O3

(5) D2 calls "Pick" loudly

(6) Game halts and D2 regains position

(7) Play continues and O scores

(8) D1 complains that he called "check feet" 3 plays back

If O1 was clearly OB, then D1 should have called "OB" loudly. Obviously, D1's teammates did not hear him call "check feet" because they continued to play, made a subsequent call, and conceded a point. Or maybe they read this discussion too and ignored the non-call from D1? Regardless, D1 was the only player complaining. If he had called "OB," O1 would have contested and the disc would have gone back. What a civil resolution.

I have to admit that this discussion initially got my back up because I have been calling "check feet" for years. However, I now realize that it's a completely equivocal call: it communicates nothing but an uncertainty from the defense about whether a play is in or out of bounds.

Sounds like we *might* be talking about cheatin' cheaters, Patrick. Sure, the "ideal" (in at least *my* mind) is that you'd have called "OB"; however, in your case, if it was still clear to the OB person that they were OB, and they still chose to play on, then well... they need to read the first two paragraphs of the rules (which I'll paraphrase as "... assumed that no-one will cheat..."). Or better yet, they need to write them out 100 times on the blackboard.

... damned cheatin' cheaters.

01 may well have thought she was in, but even in John T Booker's game (which could be mine) it's not a question of whether O1 thought she was out or not its whether she thought D1 thought she was out. And in my game she clearly knew that D1 thought she was out as she said "I know where my feet are." to him (me, in this case). Also, there was no muttering in my game except possibly some post-play curses on my part (sorry).


If it was more than a mutter, why did no one hear the initial call but D1 and O1? Surely your team should have stopped the play if they believed there was an infraction.

I don't actually know what the appropriate resolution is here. If there's a disagreement between two players while everyone is playing on, what should D1 do? Rules experts?

Regardless, next time you'll call OB and she'll contest and everything will be resolved appropriately without post-play cursing.

If there's a disagreement between players, play should stop. If there is no resolution, the disc should go back to the thrower for a do-over.

Patrick: "I, without the benefit of this forum, called "check feet" and made it clear I thought

the O was out."

That sentence is an oxymoron.

Patrick, if this thread hasn't taught you that you're *definitely not* making yourself clear with

a "check feet" call, then I don't know what to say.

You *didn't* make yourself clear!

Perhaps the O did a mental check of her position and "knew where her feet were" (IB in her

mind) and played on. Is that not going above and beyond what's required by the non-call of

CF? How do you know that wasn't her thought-process? Any other interpretation of what

what she was thinking is just as speculative.

This forum topic is irrelevant to the right play, if you'd know the rule, you wouldn't have

gotten your nose out of joint. Let's chalk this up to not knowing the rule, learn from it, and

call "OB" like a real player, instead of the obviously wishy-washy (yet expectant of action,

thus passive-aggressive) "check feet"?

but you could have still called travel after the throw ....now that woulda got her goat real good.

... Oh look... the horse isn't dead after all... I saw it move...

I was on the opposite sideline and didn't have good visual perspective... so with that in mind, here's what happened in a recent game.

20 or 30 m pass to a receiver/defender pair near the sideline. Just as the receiver stopped (seemed 'close' to the line, maybe caught out, maybe caught in and ran out), I hear "check feet" from the marker of the previous thrower.

I then hear another voice (fairly faint, but I heard it clearly from across the field) saying "good" just about the time the receiver-now-thrower throws a pass towards the end zone.

Then as the disc is in the air on a continuation pass for the score, I hear from way back down-field "... but I said 'check feet', he was out".

The reply, "you didn't call him out, all you said was 'check feet'... " followed by some mumble/grumble in the 'callers' direction.

"I was calling him out".

The person who'd called 'check feet' then forced the disc to come back to the sideline where the original reception was made and said it should be a turnover... which is exactly what happened... a turnover.

From the discussion, the receiver wasn't very happy about the disc being called back after so long (~ 30-45 seconds of play had continued before the calls were escalated). He was no longer near the sideline, and no-one that would have been there with perspective earlier in the play was able to give perspective any longer.

It sure seemed to me that everyone else continued play because they accepted the "good" 'call'... and agreed with it.

Unfortunately, it also should have gone back to the original thrower to redo the entire thing...

... but what really should've happened was the 'check feet' caller had actually clearly called the person "out". They'd said later that this is what they were actually doing with the "check feet" call.

This is the *only* "check feet" call that I've been around since this thread last updated almost 3 months ago... and it was a lot of hard feelings and resolved completely differently than it should have... surely it can't be agreed to be a good thing to call.

*sigh* ... perhaps it's not too late to get into the 11th that "Check Feet call results in the disc automatically being in-bounds, and any persuant discussion about it being a valid call results in a score with defense pulling again to the offense so they can score again."

... sorry guys, but I *know* I saw that horse flinch.


Mortakai, when did this situation occur. The 'good' call seemed almost like me... I remember making a quiet 'lil 'good' call in a game at UHF. I just don't quite remember what exactly happened after.

I would almost suggest a 'do-over'... I am not sure where this call was invented. I have a feeling it is one of the two provinces directly east of Alberta... However, I think it would be difficult to reset the whole play, because it was already put into play.

When somebody uses the phrase "but I meant" or "I said that but I was calling..." when arguing

their rule stand-point, they should have to do a lap.

"When somebody uses the phrase "but I meant" or "I said that but I was calling..." when arguing their rule stand-point, they should have to do a lap...."

of the city, on their knees.

at most they should have to complete a boat race on their own then have to play the next ten points....

....now to be Keanu Reeves in a bad legal movie - check feet was the wrong call if you want to call out specifically - like calling foul when you were stripped - I'll contest the foul but not the strip call on purely semantic reasons in instances where I wouldn't contest the strip call.

and I'll be Keanu Reeves in every movie since then...


"I'll contest the foul but not the strip call on purely semantic reasons in instances where I

wouldn't contest the strip call."

Well that's a bad example of what we're talking about. Actually come to think of it, it's a

really good example of how people don't know the rules and will cause problems by being a

RuleCop while being in the wrong. However in your example, it's you that's the one in the

wrong trying to enforce your fictional rule...

When somebody strips you, it is a foul. After you're stripped, whether you call foul or strip,

it's exactly the same when it comes to reasons to contest (the difference is when figuring if

the point stands).

How can you contest that the physical contact you initiated didn't affect the outcome of the

play? Remember "XVI.I.6.A) ...The disc in a thrower's possession is considered part of the


All strips are fouls, not all fouls are strips.

Calling a square a rectangle is not wrong. Contesting that is.

PS: You know you stripped the person, but you're going to contest it because they call foul. I

am constantly amazed by the type of person that gets the "rule nazi" moniker applied.

Perhaps we need a new moniker for the ignorant and emphatic fake-rule enforcers... How


Fakes All Rules Then Bullies Annoying Guesses

Please don't be a FART BAG, don't argue a rule unless you know it.

Bill: Be excellent to each other.

Ted: Party on, dudes.


The vagaries of forum posting ....meant - if we are going to jump to the state of arguing the exact wording and 'what you should have said' then in that case where every utterance a person makes needs to be hashed around and looked at from every angle for a way to say they are wrong - if in that world someone called a foul instead of strip I would then be forced (based upon my at that time erroneous interpretation of the rule for which I should be taken out back and whipped for upwards of an hour) to say that that was the wrong call and thus must be contested.

Now as to your discussion of foul/strip - re-read 'Strip' isn't a call - it is a subset of fouls for which you must call 'foul'

XVI.I.3 "A foul can only be called by the player who has been fouled and must be announced by loudly calling out the word "Foul!" immediately after the foul has occurred. "

The strip rule makes no mention of calling 'strip'. Thus the strip call is non-existent in the rules - (note foul not a violation so you don't call the rule name) - so you can reconfigure my example to have me contest a strip call when it should have been a foul call. Strip is not a big 'C' call, I already know that check feet isn't even a small 'c' call but that just semantics and that's the world we are talking about right now.

Hey you're right! I kinda fartbagged that one.*

I seem to remember bringing that up once before several months back, but I'd forgotten about


* Though I was right in my statement if not completely accurate in the explanation, a case to

which the moniker only sort of applies.

Whao! Did I just see Temple admit he was wrong about something ;)

Crazy huh?

Some may think I have problem admitting when I'm wrong, because I admit it

so rarely.

In reality, I'm happily the first to admit when I'm wrong, when I'm wrong.

I think Temple thought he was wrong once before...

... but he was mistaken.

Nah, I'm wrong lots, but I don't stick to my stance stubbornly. I care a whole lot more about

what is right than being right.

Hey Craig, are you back from Vegas yet?

The rumblings over on the 11th edition forum are slowing way down, and I was wondering when you'd be over to spice them up.

Yeah, been back for a week, but I'm going back on Sunday for an indeterminate amount of


Send me the info of where the rules and grumblings are and I'll spice things up I'm sure.