BGonline.org Forums

Ruling: Two-fer (Part 2)

Posted By: Bob Koca
Date: Tuesday, 8 May 2012, at 8:38 p.m.

In Response To: Ruling: Two-fer (Part 2) (Justin N.)

Other than a switch to a lower length match for the consolation bracket such changes in match length are more likely to bring this sort of problem than do something good.

Messages In This Thread

• Ruling: Two-fer (Part 2)
  Justin N. -- Saturday, 5 May 2012, at 7:23 a.m.
  • Ruling: Two-fer (Part 2)
    Mr Majestyk -- Saturday, 5 May 2012, at 11:38 a.m.
  • Ruling: Two-fer (Part 2)
    Tom Keith -- Saturday, 5 May 2012, at 1:31 p.m.
    • Ruling: Two-fer (Part 2)
      neilkaz -- Saturday, 5 May 2012, at 6:56 p.m.
      • Ruling: Two-fer (Part 2)
        Daniel Murphy -- Saturday, 5 May 2012, at 7:18 p.m.
      • Ruling: Two-fer (Part 2)
        Phil Simborg -- Sunday, 6 May 2012, at 3:43 p.m.
  • Ruling: Two-fer (Part 2)
    Colin Owen -- Saturday, 5 May 2012, at 1:33 p.m.
  • Ruling: Two-fer (Part 2)
    Bill Riles -- Saturday, 5 May 2012, at 1:43 p.m.
  • Ruling: Two-fer (Part 2)
    Daniel Murphy -- Tuesday, 8 May 2012, at 5:11 p.m.
  • Ruling: Two-fer (Part 2)
    Bob Koca -- Tuesday, 8 May 2012, at 8:38 p.m.