-
Topics Being Discussed Right Now on The Sand Trap
-
- 9 replies
- 117 views
-
- 2,013 replies
- 46,726 views
-
- 1,779 replies
- 72,435 views
-
"5 Minutes Daily" Practice Challenge 1 2 3 4 624
By iacas, in Instruction and Playing Tips
- 5 minutes daily
- dedication
- (and 6 more)
- 11,222 replies
- 553,929 views
-
- 32 replies
- 9,667 views
-
Announcements
-
Support TST Affiliates
Direct links for Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package. Save 10% on Mevo with coupon code "IACAS" as well. -
Posts
-
By boogielicious ·
There are drills you can do on mats to work on fat shots. Put a piece of tape on the mat behind the ball and inch or two and work to not touch the tape. Also, I agree on drivers. I’m not sure what kind of mat you have, but the can can wear and tear on your wrists and arms. -
-
By iacas ·
I was taking about the football stuff. It’s a lousy legal position that has almost nothing to do with what we have here now. As Rich said, you need to tie more than just “sports” and “antitrust” together. Also, where is the NFL now? Oh, even more of a monopoly? Cool. P.S. Again, being a monopoly alone isn’t illegal. P.P.S. Asking your profession and pointing out a fact is not ad hominem. Drop it. -
By ChetlovesMer ·
Day 27: 8/12/2022 Hit balls into a net in the garage working on my priority pieces. I did a little mirror work as well. Slow motion stuff with both a 7-iron and a driver. -
By turtleback ·
There is nothing in that quote that in any way tries to argue that team sport cases provide any precedent for this situation, which is what I challenged you on. If you are going to cite precedents they need to be on point. Simply citing a situation involving a sport and antitrust issue doesn't make that a relevant precedent for a case involving qualitatively different sports (i.e., a team sport with employees and an individual sport with independent contractors) and completely different possible antitrust issues. Football and antitrust therefore golf and antitrust is not a valid implication. The devil is in the details and none of the details in these two situations are remotely similar. And there is no ad hominem on your profession, it is a recognition that your profession has not prepared you to do legal analysis. And that's fine. But it puts the validity of your legal arguments into context. Since you asked, I'm not a lawyer but my professional credentials authorized me to represent clients and practice law on certain specific sections of the tax code, which I did for over 20 years. So I am at least conversant with legal reasoning and have experience, albeit in a different area, with how legal reasoning works. So, I'm not a lawyer but I am more knowledgeable than the average bear about the law because of that training and experience. That doesn't make me right, but it does inform my opinion.
-
-
Today's Birthdays
-
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.