SOCREF-L Archives – May 2009, week 2

1. advantage nullified by offside -- now what?
   • advantage nullified by offside -- now what? (34 lines)
     From: Christopher Seiwald <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 21:53:33 -0700
   • Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what? (56 lines)
     From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 23:11:09 -0700
   • Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what? (64 lines)
     From: Jorge L. Gimeno <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 23:39:56 -0700
   • Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what? (54 lines)
     From: [log in to unmask]
     Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 09:49:27 -0400
   • Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what? (61 lines)
     From: Jim Gordon <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 10:22:55 -0400
   • Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what? (92 lines)
     From: Larry Huey <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 11:42:07 -0400
   • Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what? (140 lines)
     From: Patrick Duffy <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 09:27:31 -0700
   • Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what? (89 lines)
     From: Reza Pazirandeh <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 09:49:18 -0700
   • Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what? (64 lines)
     From: doug smith <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 19:07:50 +0000
   • Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what? (22 lines)
     From: Christopher Seiwald <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 23:34:53 -0700
   • Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what? (40 lines)
     From: Glenn Sogge <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 08:16:39 -0500

2. Barcelona v Chelsea
   • Re: Barcelona v Chelsea (45 lines)
     From: Jonny (AYSO Los Angeles) <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 17:18:16 -0400

3. Biggest laugh of the year -- for me anyway
   • Re: Biggest laugh of the year -- for me anyway (38 lines)
     From: Gary Voshol <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 06:59:50 -0400

4. But I Have to GO
   • But I Have to GO (48 lines)
     From: Tom Stagliano <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 12:33:45 -0400
   • Re: But I Have to GO (63 lines)
     From: Ed Marco <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 13:11:59 -0400

5. Don't count on an upgrade from Tommy Smyth (was: Offside from corner kick - AGAIN!)
   • Don't count on an upgrade from Tommy Smyth (was: Offside from corner kick - AGAIN!) (47 lines)
     From: Reddy, Bernard <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 08:43:17 -0400
   • Re: Don't count on an upgrade from Tommy Smyth (was: Offside from corner kick - AGAIN!) (68 lines)
     From: Vince Hradil <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 08:53:53 -0500
   • Re: Don't count on an upgrade from Tommy Smyth (was: Offside from corner kick - AGAIN!) (77 lines)
     From: Reddy, Bernard <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 10:35:02 -0400
   • Re: Don't count on an upgrade from Tommy Smyth (was: Offside from corner kick - AGAIN!) (38 lines)
     From: ron Leedy <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 07:41:37 PDT
   • Re: Don't count on an upgrade from Tommy Smyth (was: Offside from corner kick - AGAIN!) (54 lines)
     From: Vince Hradil <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 09:51:09 -0500
   • Re: Don't count on an upgrade from Tommy Smyth (was: Offside from corner kick - AGAIN!) (46 lines)
     From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 08:01:33 -0700
   • Re: Don't count on an upgrade from Tommy Smyth (was: Offside from corner kick - AGAIN!) (53 lines)
     From: Lawrence Savell <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 08:26:43 -0700
   • Re: Don't count on an upgrade from Tommy Smyth (was: Offside from corner kick - AGAIN!) (92 lines)
     From: F Chester Miller III <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 08:27:18 -0700

6. ESPN podcast
   • ESPN podcast (57 lines)
     From: doug smith <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 18:14:37 +0000

7. FIFA Laws of the Game
   • FIFA Laws of the Game (26 lines)
     From: Craig & Maggie <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 12:51:13 -0500
   • Re: FIFA Laws of the Game (38 lines)
     From: Patrick Duffy <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 11:24:44 -0700
   • Re: FIFA Laws of the Game (56 lines)
     From: David Bassett <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 11:32:40 -0700
   • Re: FIFA Laws of the Game (42 lines)
     From: Mike Skinner <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 11:52:17 -0700
   • Re: FIFA Laws of the Game (38 lines)
     From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 20:45:37 -0700

8. How long has it been since...? (crack open the LOTG once in a while, dude)
   • How long has it been since...? (crack open the LOTG once in a while, dude) (40 lines)
     From: Mike Handler <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 16:50:43 -0400
   • Re: How long has it been since...? (crack open the LOTG once in a while, dude) (47 lines)
     From: Ed Marco <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:56 -0400
   • Re: How long has it been since...? (crack open the LOTG once in a while, dude) (20 lines)
     From: Joe Makowiec <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 17:32:14 -0400
   • Re: How long has it been since...? (crack open the LOTG once in a while, dude) (55 lines)
     From: Fred Speirs <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 19:55:07 -0500
   • Re: How long has it been since...? (crack open the LOTG once in a while, dude) (66 lines)
     From: Mike Handler <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 21:13:02 -0400
   • Re: How long has it been since...? (crack open the LOTG once in a while, dude) (21 lines)
     From: Chris Mohr <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 21:52:32 -0400
   • Re: How long has it been since...? (crack open the LOTG once in a while, dude) (20 lines)
     From: Gary Voshol <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 06:57:30 -0400
   • Re: How long has it been since...? (crack open the LOTG once in a while, dude) (38 lines)
     From: Sandy and Ferenc Korompai <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 08:05:41 -0500
   • Re: How long has it been since...? (crack open the LOTG once in a while, dude) (58 lines)
     From: Sandy and Ferenc Korompai <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 07:56:57 -0500
   • Re: How long has it been since...? (crack open the LOTG once in a while, dude) (55 lines)
     From: Michael I. Handler <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 09:54:34 -0400
   • Re: How long has it been since...? (crack open the LOTG once in a while, dude) (82 lines)
     From: Sandy and Ferenc Korompai <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 09:16:01 -0500
   • Re: How long has it been since...? (crack open the LOTG once in a while, dude) (27 lines)
     From: Chris Mohr <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 10:45:26 -0400
   • Re: How long has it been since...? (crack open the LOTG once in a while, dude) (28 lines)
     From: Chris Mohr <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 10:48:35 -0400
   • Re: How long has it been since...? (crack open the LOTG once in a while, dude) (35 lines)
     From: Michael I. Handler <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 15:10:31 +0000

9. IFK encroachment vs. ball in play already
   • IFK encroachment vs. ball in play already (46 lines)
     From: Vince DeFranco <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 16:25:56 -0500
   • Re: IFK encroachment vs. ball in play already (15 lines)
     From: George Parker <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 16:32:53 -0500
   • Re: IFK encroachment vs. ball in play already (24 lines)
     From: WS-ARA <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 14:39:25 -0700
   • Re: IFK encroachment vs. ball in play already (66 lines)
     From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 17:48:23 -0400
   • Re: IFK encroachment vs. ball in play already (31 lines)
     From: Vince DeFranco <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 16:46:47 -0500
   • Re: IFK encroachment vs. ball in play already (14 lines)
     From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 17:51:39 -0400
   • Re: IFK encroachment vs. ball in play already (24 lines)
     From: Richard Critz <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 18:05:04 -0400
   • Re: IFK encroachment vs. ball in play already (87 lines)
     From: Wickham, Dennis <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 14:55:54 -0700
   • Re: IFK encroachment vs. ball in play already (37 lines)
     From: Chris Mohr <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 18:55:28 -0400
   • Re: IFK encroachment vs. ball in play already (38 lines)
     From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 23:53:30 -0700
   • Re: IFK encroachment vs. ball in play already (42 lines)
     From: Jim Gordon <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 10:37:30 -0400
   • Re: IFK encroachment vs. ball in play already (55 lines)
     From: Ed Marco <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 11:45:49 -0400
   • Re: IFK encroachment vs. ball in play already (93 lines)
     From: Bill Robinson <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 09:16:08 -0700
   • Re: IFK encroachment vs. ball in play already (49 lines)
     From: Chris Mohr <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:23:13 -0400
   • Re: IFK encroachment vs. ball in play already (43 lines)
     From: Larry Stone <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:09:54 -0500

10. Imagine soccer without advantage
    • Imagine soccer without advantage (45 lines)
      From: The Geissmans <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 15:00:09 -0700
    • Re: Imagine soccer without advantage (43 lines)
      From: Larry Stone <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 18:43:37 -0500

11. Impressed ARs
    • Impressed ARs (35 lines)
      From: Tom Stagliano <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 15:13:59 -0400

12. Last week's Champions League
    • Last week's Champions League (114 lines)
      From: The Geissmans <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 23:30:32 -0700

13. Leeds in League One playoffs
    • Re: Leeds in League One playoffs (24 lines)
      From: lee jordan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 07:42:48 -0700

14. Leeds in League One playoffs, Was: Barcelona v Chelsea
    • Leeds in League One playoffs, Was: Barcelona v Chelsea (29 lines)
      From: Gil Weber <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 17:34:36 -0400
    • Re: Leeds in League One playoffs, Was: Barcelona v Chelsea (51 lines)
      From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 19:33:47 -0700
    • Re: Leeds in League One playoffs, Was: Barcelona v Chelsea (66 lines)
      From: John Magnusson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 10:01:31 -0400
    • Re: Leeds in League One playoffs, Was: Barcelona v Chelsea (62 lines)
      From: Sandy and Ferenc Korompai <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 09:12:39 -0500
    • Re: Leeds in League One playoffs, Was: Barcelona v Chelsea (23 lines)
      From: Gil Weber <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 10:36:07 -0400
    • Re: Leeds in League One playoffs, Was: Barcelona v Chelsea (37 lines)
      From: Fred Speirs <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 09:32:37 -0500
    • Re: Leeds in League One playoffs, Was: Barcelona v Chelsea (18 lines)
      From: George Parker <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 09:58:15 -0500
    • Re: Leeds in League One playoffs, Was: Barcelona v Chelsea (29 lines)
      From: Ed Bellion <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 14:29:52 -0400

15. Managing the last several minutes
    • Managing the last several minutes (67 lines)
      From: Tom Stagliano <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 12:26:21 -0400
    • Re: Managing the last several minutes (120 lines)
      From: Mike Handler <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 16:45:49 -0400

16. NBA league office overrules ref decision
    • NBA league office overrules ref decision (66 lines)
      From: doug smith <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 16:11:53 +0000
    • Re: NBA league office overrules ref decision (45 lines)
      From: Chris Mohr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 14:17:47 -0400
    • Re: NBA league office overrules ref decision (81 lines)
      From: doug smith <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 20:42:03 +0000

17. New Memo from USSF
    • New Memo from USSF (40 lines)
      From: doug smith <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 17:00:06 +0000

18. Notable weekend games
    • Notable weekend games (48 lines)
      From: Patrick Duffy <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 13:07:13 -0700
    • Re: Notable weekend games (70 lines)
      From: WS-ARA <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 14:00:38 -0700
    • Re: Notable weekend games (85 lines)
      From: Richard Houser <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 14:01:10 -0800

19. Player off the field w/o permission
    • Player off the field w/o permission (28 lines)
      From: Glenn Sogge <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 19:38:51 -0500

20. Quino pictures the ultimate outside agent
    • Quino pictures the ultimate outside agent (17 lines)
      From: Jim Gordon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 15:10:24 -0400

21. RAP
    • RAP (36 lines)
      From: Fred Speirs <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 21:49:31 +0000

22. Referee Gifts its Not Just OK, but Wise to Recognize and Accept
    • Referee Gifts its Not Just OK, but Wise to Recognize and Accept (108 lines)
      From: Chris Mohr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 15:08:23 -0400

23. SOCREF-L Digest - 7 May 2009 to 8 May 2009 (#2009-124)
    • Re: SOCREF-L Digest - 7 May 2009 to 8 May 2009 (#2009-124) (72 lines)
      From: Jonny (AYSO Los Angeles) <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 00:31:23 -0400

24. Sometimes a Slap is just a Slap
    • Sometimes a Slap is just a Slap (59 lines)
      From: Tom Stagliano <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 15:34:45 -0400
    • Re: Sometimes a Slap is just a Slap (77 lines)
      From: Dave Wolgast <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 16:22:15 -0400
    • Re: Sometimes a Slap is just a Slap (87 lines)
      From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 19:16:55 -0700
    • Re: Sometimes a Slap is just a Slap (36 lines)
      From: Dave Wolgast <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 23:11:44 -0400
    • Re: Sometimes a Slap is just a Slap (65 lines)
      From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 21:30:00 -0700
    • Re: Sometimes a Slap is just a Slap (48 lines)
      From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 23:03:17 -0700
    • Re: Sometimes a Slap is just a Slap (108 lines)
      From: Patrick Duffy <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 11:05:44 -0700
    • Re: Sometimes a Slap is just a Slap (34 lines)
      From: Gil Weber <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 14:16:34 -0400
    • Re: Sometimes a Slap is just a Slap (43 lines)
      From: Dave Wolgast <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 14:55:26 -0400
    • Re: Sometimes a Slap is just a Slap (50 lines)
      From: Ed Marco <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 18:29:58 -0400

25. Tournaments Labor Day Weekend
    • Tournaments Labor Day Weekend (19 lines)
      From: Gil Weber <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 13:40:13 -0400

26. Unofficial signal for "there might be a late offside flag" (was Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what?)
    • Unofficial signal for "there might be a late offside flag" (was Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what?) (19 lines)
      From: Michael I. Handler <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 10:57:46 -0400
    • Re: Unofficial signal for "there might be a late offside flag" (was Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what?) (34 lines)
      From: WS-ARA <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 08:07:56 -0700
    • Re: Unofficial signal for "there might be a late offside flag" (was Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what?) (31 lines)
      From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 08:32:29 -0700
    • Re: Unofficial signal for "there might be a late offside flag" (was Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what?) (45 lines)
      From: Chris Mohr <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 11:58:30 -0400
    • Re: Unofficial signal for "there might be a late offside flag" (was Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what?) (46 lines)
      From: Ed Marco <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 11:55:57 -0400
    • Re: Unofficial signal for "there might be a late offside flag" (was Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what?) (64 lines)
      From: doug smith <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 16:08:54 +0000
    • Re: Unofficial signal for "there might be a late offside flag" (was Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what?) (52 lines)
      From: Michael I. Handler <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 13:40:24 -0400
    • Re: Unofficial signal for "there might be a late offside flag" (was Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what?) (89 lines)
      From: Wickham, Dennis <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 11:13:28 -0700
    • Re: Unofficial signal for "there might be a late offside flag" (was Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what?) (63 lines)
      From: Reza Pazirandeh <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 11:11:14 -0700
    • Re: Unofficial signal for "there might be a late offside flag" (was Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what?) (73 lines)
      From: Lawrence Savell <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 14:36:11 -0400
    • Re: Unofficial signal for "there might be a late offside flag" (was Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what?) (150 lines)
      From: Ed Marco <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 14:37:23 -0400
    • Re: Unofficial signal for "there might be a late offside flag" (was Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what?) (131 lines)
      From: doug smith <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 19:21:25 +0000
    • Re: Unofficial signal for "there might be a late offside flag" (was Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what?) (125 lines)
      From: Ed Marco <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 15:33:54 -0400
    • Re: Unofficial signal for "there might be a late offside flag" (was Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what?) (102 lines)
      From: Reza Pazirandeh <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 18:13:57 -0700
    • Re: Unofficial signal for "there might be a late offside flag" (was Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what?) (20 lines)
      From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 18:47:00 -0700
    • Re: Unofficial signal for "there might be a late offside flag" (was Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what?) (34 lines)
      From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 19:10:51 -0700
    • Re: Unofficial signal for "there might be a late offside flag" (was Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what?) (29 lines)
      From: Ed Marco <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 22:18:03 -0400
    • Re: Unofficial signal for "there might be a late offside flag" (was Re: advantage nullified by offside -- now what?) (38 lines)
      From: Jim Welnetz <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 21:46:07 -0500

27. Unusually constructive fans ...
    • Unusually constructive fans ... (27 lines)
      From: Mark Gallagher <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 01:53:23 +1000

28. Wambach suspended for foul on Daniela
    • Wambach suspended for foul on Daniela (41 lines)
      From: Shelly Landry <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 11:27:06 -0400
    • Re: Wambach suspended for foul on Daniela (54 lines)
      From: Vince Hradil <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 12:10:49 -0500
    • Re: Wambach suspended for foul on Daniela (55 lines)
      From: Gil Weber <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 13:24:59 -0400
    • Re: Wambach suspended for foul on Daniela (41 lines)
      From: ron Leedy <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 10:48:35 PDT
    • Re: Wambach suspended for foul on Daniela (66 lines)
      From: Ed Marco <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 14:09:03 -0400

29. What is the proper way to handle this?
    • What is the proper way to handle this? (25 lines)
      From: Thomas Coatoam <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 15:42:58 -0400
    • Re: What is the proper way to handle this? (51 lines)
      From: Richard Houser <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:21:30 -0800
    • Re: What is the proper way to handle this? (81 lines)
      From: Glenn Sogge <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 15:38:02 -0500
    • Re: What is the proper way to handle this? (54 lines)
      From: Patrick Duffy <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 13:41:26 -0700

30. [UBE?] Re: NBA league office overrules ref decision
    • [UBE?] Re: NBA league office overrules ref decision (25 lines)
      From: Gary Voshol <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 17:55:17 -0400