Actually, I was suprised and disappointed by the ruling on the ballast.

My understanding, (and I say "understanding" becuse there has been a lot of accusations and slander here lately aimed a guys who have tried to repeat what they were told from other sources.)...

....is that the rule change was actually discussed long ago. But for some reason that I am unaware of, it never made it into fastrack.

I assume (again, don't shoot me, I'm just the piano player) that it didn't make it thru the process far enough to have been voted on, and therefore it couldn't be handled as an errors and omissions deal.

So, it's a rulechange, not a clarification, and I guess that means that it has to wait until next year.

We tried, but sometimes the gears don't mesh as they should. Sucks.

(disclaimer for the conspiracy theorists: I wasn't in the process after it left the ITAC the second time, and I wasn't around the first time. I am merely looking at the situation, using what I have been told and making some logical conclusions. Don't take it to the bank, I'm just trying to shed a little light.) [/b]
Jake, I don't know who you are refering to about being slandered. If it is true, this is no way for adults to act. I will disagree big time with you about pushing the weight ruking pushed back to 2007. This is total nonsense, unless I'm missing something about rule making here. As I would think the Chairman of the CRB has the authority to implement any rule that was passed by the committee when ever he/ or she fills fit.

If the gears aren't meshing, it's time to fix the syncronizer!