Grey Knight wrote: >However, the situation here is the reverse of that described in R1871; >it talks about "selecting a Player to Judge a CFJ or Appeal who is not >eligible to judge that CFJ or Appeal solely because e is turned", >whereas here the Player in question *was* eligible, and what is more my >mistaken criterion for declaring Manu ineligible was because of being >"on hold" rather than being turned.
AIUI, Sherlock was ineligible because e was Turned, you having failed to unturn em. That would be the case if a Notice of Rotation is invalid when not required. -zefram
