Although I wouldn`t mind it sometime, I`m realisitc enough to know sports rulings aren`t equivalent.

Last year, IMO Fogel ruled as he did (and Beatie gave him the excuse) in a way that forced the parties to settle their differences asap.

In comparing Fogel and Jenkins, they share some sobering similarities, including regional. Will those similarities, philisophical outlooks and leanings subconciously come into play on how they look at the parties involved?

Could those contributing factors have more impact than any prior rulings?

No response necessary, just retorical questions.

Regards