And I stand by my interpretation being the one the makes the most sense. Let logic reign!
So yeah. 4 weeks. Let's do it. (Unless people are really opposed).
I think Mark is correct, logically. On the other hand, it seems like most people understood it the other way (2 weeks total, not 4). With that said, a forfeit is a pretty large penalty, so why not go with the more lenient interpretation of the time limit? This would be:
**The fixture window is two weeks, and that is the norm for when you should try to get your game done. If you don't have it played within four weeks, there will be a forfeit. **
So far, only Jono has registered a complaint to this interpretation. Are there other people who feel strongly about it?
I think Mark is correct, logically. On the other hand, it seems like most people understood it the other way (2 weeks total, not 4). With that said, a forfeit is a pretty large penalty, so why not go with the more lenient interpretation of the time limit? This would be:
**The fixture window is two weeks, and that is the norm for when you should try to get your game done. If you don't have it played within four weeks, there will be a forfeit. **
So far, only Jono has registered a complaint to this interpretation. Are there other people who feel strongly about it?