I dunno, it sounds like the idea is getting bogged
down in the accounting. I still think treating an
entire run as a mulligan would be more practicable (at
least there would be fewer nervous breakdowns in T&S).
CAB
--- Rocky Entriken <rocky@tri.net> wrote:
>
>
> How about ruling that no two consecutive cones on
> the same side of the car,
> and no two out of three consecutive slalom cones,
> can be bought as
> mulligans?
>
> Then if you really want to prevent a mulligan at a
> specific danger zone,
> double-cone the apex and/or exit. (They get to claim
> one as mulligan, must
> take the penalty for the other whether a cone-hit or
> off-course). Make your
> slaloms at least 4 cones and they MUST weave at
> least two of them.
>
>
>
>
|