SOCREF-L Archives – September 2009, week 5

1. cheating
   • Re: cheating (31 lines)
     From: Mark Wroth <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:26:39 -0700

2. End of game, yes or no?
   • End of game, yes or no? (26 lines)
     From: Greg Dunlap <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:20:19 -0700
   • Re: End of game, yes or no? (42 lines)
     From: Mike Wint <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:40:57 -0400

3. Ethics Questiion
   • Ethics Questiion (29 lines)
     From: Lawrence Savell <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:37:13 -0700
   • Re: Ethics Questiion (33 lines)
     From: Lawrence Savell <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:44:15 -0400
   • Re: Ethics Questiion (51 lines)
     From: Ed Marco <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:50:31 -0400

4. Example of high school pointy-ball good sportsmanship (No referee content)
   • Example of high school pointy-ball good sportsmanship (No referee content) (20 lines)
     From: Scott Riegelhaupt-Herzig <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:53:59 -0700
   • Re: Example of high school pointy-ball good sportsmanship (No referee content) (33 lines)
     From: Mike Moore <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:11:32 -0400
   • Re: Example of high school pointy-ball good sportsmanship (No referee content) (37 lines)
     From: Scott Riegelhaupt-Herzig <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:32:34 -0700
   • Re: Example of high school pointy-ball good sportsmanship (No referee content) (51 lines)
     From: Josef Zeevi <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:08:41 -0500
   • Re: Example of high school pointy-ball good sportsmanship (No referee content) (78 lines)
     From: Bob Foster <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:50:27 EDT

5. Foul throw that does not enter field (Was: RE: SEPARATE THE INFRINGEMENTS)
   • Foul throw that does not enter field (Was: RE: SEPARATE THE INFRINGEMENTS) (47 lines)
     From: doug smith <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:49:49 +0000
   • Re: Foul throw that does not enter field (Was: RE: SEPARATE THE INFRINGEMENTS) (66 lines)
     From: Jim <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:54:29 -0500
   • Re: Foul throw that does not enter field (Was: RE: SEPARATE THE INFRINGEMENTS) (85 lines)
     From: doug smith <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:38:28 +0000
   • Re: Foul throw that does not enter field (Was: RE: SEPARATE THE INFRINGEMENTS) (76 lines)
     From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:53:06 -0700

6. Getting it Right
   • Getting it Right (23 lines)
     From: Mark A. Morin <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:48:24 -0700

7. Handling by GK
   • Re: Handling by GK (32 lines)
     From: Jim Livingston <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:30:46 -0400

8. Italian ATR
   • Italian ATR (16 lines)
     From: Sandy and Ferenc Korompai <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:59:03 -0500

9. SEPARATE THE INFRINGEMENTS
   • Re: SEPARATE THE INFRINGEMENTS (106 lines)
     From: John Sites <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:04:49 -0400
   • Re: SEPARATE THE INFRINGEMENTS (63 lines)
     From: doug smith <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:26:19 +0000
   • Re: SEPARATE THE INFRINGEMENTS (22 lines)
     From: Gary Voshol <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:51:20 +0000
   • Re: SEPARATE THE INFRINGEMENTS (131 lines)
     From: Jim <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:52:10 -0500
   • Re: SEPARATE THE INFRINGEMENTS (45 lines)
     From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:25:55 -0700
   • Re: SEPARATE THE INFRINGEMENTS (53 lines)
     From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:15:08 -0700
   • Re: SEPARATE THE INFRINGEMENTS (65 lines)
     From: Neil Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:04:11 -0400
   • Re: SEPARATE THE INFRINGEMENTS (160 lines)
     From: Wickham, Dennis <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:28:30 -0700

10. Sunderland v Wolves handling by GK
    • Sunderland v Wolves handling by GK (20 lines)
      From: Jonny (AYSO Los Angeles) <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:59:49 -0400
    • Re: Sunderland v Wolves handling by GK (22 lines)
      From: Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:20:37 -0700
    • Re: Sunderland v Wolves handling by GK (57 lines)
      From: Ron Leedy <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:32:22 -0700
    • Re: Sunderland v Wolves handling by GK (23 lines)
      From: Ron Leedy <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:32:52 -0700
    • Re: Sunderland v Wolves handling by GK (29 lines)
      From: Josef Zeevi <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:41:12 -0500
    • Re: Sunderland v Wolves handling by GK (40 lines)
      From: Vince Hradil <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:42:55 -0500
    • Re: Sunderland v Wolves handling by GK (49 lines)
      From: Domal, Roger <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:04:20 -0400
    • Re: Sunderland v Wolves handling by GK (62 lines)
      From: Donn Milton <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:14:23 -0500
    • Re: Sunderland v Wolves handling by GK (79 lines)
      From: Wickham, Dennis <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:21:06 -0700
    • Re: Sunderland v Wolves handling by GK (84 lines)
      From: Tom Walker <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:34:08 -0400
    • Re: Sunderland v Wolves handling by GK (88 lines)
      From: Ron Leedy <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:42:24 -0700
    • Re: Sunderland v Wolves handling by GK (99 lines)
      From: Donn Milton <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:34:00 -0500
    • Re: Sunderland v Wolves handling by GK (105 lines)
      From: Lawrence Savell <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:30:48 -0700

11. Whose game is it? (was: SEPARATE THE INFRINGEMENTS)
    • Whose game is it? (was: SEPARATE THE INFRINGEMENTS) (48 lines)
      From: Jim Gordon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:33:49 -0400

12. [UBE?] Re: Ethics Questiion
    • [UBE?] Re: Ethics Questiion (51 lines)
      From: WS-ARA <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:45:42 -0700
    • [UBE?] Re: Ethics Questiion (61 lines)
      From: Gil Weber <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:38:03 -0400
    • Re: [UBE?] Re: Ethics Questiion (81 lines)
      From: Joe Bean <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:18:38 -0700
    • Re: [UBE?] Re: Ethics Questiion (117 lines)
      From: Scott Riegelhaupt-Herzig <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:27:47 -0700
    • Re: [UBE?] Re: Ethics Questiion (49 lines)
      From: Reza Pazirandeh <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:38:12 -0700
    • Re: [UBE?] Re: Ethics Questiion (76 lines)
      From: Joe Bean <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:24:54 -0700