SOCREF-L Archives – January 2009, week 5

1. After Further Review ...
   • Re: After Further Review ... (65 lines)
     From: Fred Speirs <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:33:57 -0500
   • Re: After Further Review ... (50 lines)
     From: doug smith <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 06:00:16 +0000
   • Re: After Further Review ... (43 lines)
     From: Lawrence Savell <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:56:43 -0800
   • Re: After Further Review ... (25 lines)
     From: Gary Voshol <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:10:56 -0500
   • Re: After Further Review ... (38 lines)
     From: Sean <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:54:39 -0500
   • Re: After Further Review ... (147 lines)
     From: WS-ARA <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 06:11:11 -0800
   • Re: After Further Review ... (40 lines)
     From: Larry Huey <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:55:56 -0500
   • Re: After Further Review ... (48 lines)
     From: Bill Robinson <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:24:34 -0800
   • Re: After Further Review ... (103 lines)
     From: Patrick Duffy <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:28:09 -0800
   • Re: After Further Review ... (29 lines)
     From: Lawrence Savell <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:43:29 -0800
   • Re: After Further Review ... (39 lines)
     From: Roger Domal <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:45:22 -0500
   • Re: After Further Review ... (53 lines)
     From: Gil Weber <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:03:52 -0500
   • Re: After Further Review ... (38 lines)
     From: Scott Riegelhaupt-Herzig <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:56:46 -0800
   • Re: After Further Review ... (44 lines)
     From: Lawrence Savell <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:43:07 -0800
   • Re: After Further Review ... (106 lines)
     From: Shelly McDavid <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:17:12 -0500
   • Re: After Further Review ... (75 lines)
     From: Wickham, Dennis <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:54:23 -0800
   • Re: After Further Review ... (34 lines)
     From: doug smith <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:59:38 +0000
   • Re: After Further Review ... (86 lines)
     From: Patrick Duffy <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:08:39 -0800
   • Re: After Further Review ... (31 lines)
     From: doug smith <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:08:46 +0000
   • Re: After Further Review ... (57 lines)
     From: WS-ARA <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:36:53 -0800
   • Re: After Further Review ... (67 lines)
     From: WS-ARA <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:43:51 -0800
   • Re: After Further Review ... (39 lines)
     From: Larry Stone <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:15:23 -0600
   • Re: After Further Review ... (19 lines)
     From: Charlie Westerfield <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:06:55 -0500
   • Re: After Further Review ... (56 lines)
     From: Scott Riegelhaupt-Herzig <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:33:52 -0800
   • Re: After Further Review ... (34 lines)
     From: doug smith <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:51:15 +0000
   • Re: After Further Review ... (64 lines)
     From: Andrew Ashmall-Liversidge <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:44:41 -0500

2. Arbiter broken by their update today
   • Arbiter broken by their update today (27 lines)
     From: Larry Stone <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:54:56 -0600
   • Re: Arbiter broken by their update today (37 lines)
     From: Larry Stone <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:32:38 -0600
   • Re: Arbiter broken by their update today (111 lines)
     From: Shelly McDavid <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:38:47 -0500

3. Fair is fair, or is it?
   • Re: Fair is fair, or is it? (23 lines)
     From: Rich Zumpone <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:05:57 -0500
   • Re: Fair is fair, or is it? (32 lines)
     From: Jeff Benjamin <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:47:25 -0700
   • Re: Fair is fair, or is it? (43 lines)
     From: doug smith <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:45:31 +0000
   • Re: Fair is fair, or is it? (26 lines)
     From: Larry Stone <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:10:32 -0600
   • Re: Fair is fair, or is it? (46 lines)
     From: Patrick Duffy <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:50:28 -0800
   • Re: Fair is fair, or is it? (29 lines)
     From: Lawrence Savell <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:59:19 -0800
   • Re: Fair is fair, or is it? (37 lines)
     From: Chris Mohr <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:35:11 -0500
   • Re: Fair is fair, or is it? (18 lines)
     From: Gary Voshol <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:27:13 -0500
   • Re: Fair is fair, or is it? (31 lines)
     From: Donn Milton <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:02:45 -0500
   • Re: Fair is fair, or is it? (48 lines)
     From: Scott Riegelhaupt-Herzig <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:20:40 -0800
   • Re: Fair is fair, or is it? (63 lines)
     From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:03:00 -0500
   • Re: Fair is fair, or is it? (103 lines)
     From: Wickham, Dennis <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:12:02 -0800
   • Re: Fair is fair, or is it? (49 lines)
     From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:23:26 -0800
   • Re: Fair is fair, or is it? (39 lines)
     From: Rich Zumpone <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 08:47:41 -0500

4. Hit Five Times
   • Hit Five Times (18 lines)
     From: Charlie Westerfield <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:01:21 -0500
   • Re: Hit Five Times (16 lines)
     From: Gary Voshol <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:24:01 -0500
   • Re: Hit Five Times (31 lines)
     From: Jim Gordon <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:12:48 -0500
   • Re: Hit Five Times (47 lines)
     From: Lawrence Savell <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:29:19 -0800
   • Re: Hit Five Times (64 lines)
     From: Tony Heaney <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:45:05 -0800

5. Hit Five Times-criteria?
   • Re: Hit Five Times-criteria? (19 lines)
     From: CP Schwartz <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:22:03 -0500

6. Interfering With Goalkeeper's Possession
   • Interfering With Goalkeeper's Possession (58 lines)
     From: Wickham, Dennis <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:11:20 -0800
   • Re: Interfering With Goalkeeper's Possession (129 lines)
     From: Jim Livingston <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:34:46 -0500
   • Re: Interfering With Goalkeeper's Possession (66 lines)
     From: doug smith <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:47:12 +0000
   • Re: Interfering With Goalkeeper's Possession (42 lines)
     From: Chris Mohr <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:07:25 -0500

7. Shelly McDavid (was Landry)
   • Shelly McDavid (was Landry) (22 lines)
     From: Reddy, Bernard <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:58:12 -0500
   • Re: Shelly McDavid (was Landry) (31 lines)
     From: Shelly Landry <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:50:38 -0500

8. training directiions
   • training directiions (34 lines)
     From: lee jordan <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 08:33:37 -0800
   • Re: training directiions (41 lines)
     From: Sean <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 12:22:39 -0500
   • Re: training directiions (54 lines)
     From: Ron Leedy <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:04:03 -0800
   • Re: training directiions (43 lines)
     From: lee jordan <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:11:09 -0800
   • Re: training directiions (65 lines)
     From: Fred Speirs <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:08:51 -0500
   • Re: training directiions (30 lines)
     From: lee jordan <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:24:28 -0800
   • Re: training directiions (60 lines)
     From: doug smith <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 00:28:13 +0000
   • Re: training directiions (45 lines)
     From: Fred Speirs <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:43:00 -0500

9. training directions
   • Re: training directions (61 lines)
     From: Lawrence Savell <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:05:49 -0800
   • Re: training directions (76 lines)
     From: Fred Speirs <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 20:10:55 -0500