Sentences with phrase «rule maker if»

Not exact matches

According to ESPN, the officials» rule book states that cheerleaders can't use any instruments or noise - makers while the game is in progress and that such behavior, if extreme enough, can warrant an ejection.

Under those imagined conditions, most pregame rule - makers would rationally, and justly, choose a reward schedule that would protect them if they did poorly in the lottery.

Ozil is a play maker in arsenal, as far as arsenal type of playbis concern, Ozil can't be ruled out please, Yes I like Sanchez, he is a very good player, a husttling type, so to speak, but if he insust, I think he can go.

No doubt that encounter will be playing on the mind of Holloway, who is once again ruling out tactical changes meaning the same old attack - minded Blackpool will turn up on Tuesday, but they could be the makers of their own downfall if they aren't careful, as Birmingham have already proven they can be one of Blackpool's bogey teams, not least because Birmingham are actually capable of repelling a Tangerine invasion on their goalmouth.

If I were the midwifery rule maker I would also remove all «woo» from the curriculum, no cohosh, raspberry leaf tea, moxibustion.

This rule is a pretty quick decision maker: If you haven't used or worn an item in the last six months to a year (depending on what it is), you don't love it.

If a film - maker accepts the new rules of the game, I don't see why a festival shouldn't do the same.»

The officials have a chilling habit of defusing all complaint, whether face - to - face or on the phone, by insisting that they themselves are not making a ruling — it is all the responsibility of the «decision - maker», as if it is one single person: «decision - maker» is an almost laughably ungainly officialese, which also has something distinctly Orwellian about it.

So, with the ground rules set, and no complaints if this or other posts are later removed, your point about policy makers strongly reminded me of what Thomas Sowell said four years ago about the striking success of his mentor Milton Friedman in affecting US (and other) government policy over many years, in a short appreciation a couple of years before the 92 - year - old Nobel Prize - winning economist died:

The only «benefit» I can see is for those within the department to demonstrate the worthiness of their continued funding at or around the current level, even though almost half that department could be removed with the stroke of a pen if a few eligibility rules for benefits were loosened for the few remaining veterans who have a few years only before meeting their maker - essentially bucket loads of money could be saved that are being expended employing teams of people for millions of dollars, to literally save mere thousands of dollars on veterans entitlements - «penny wise and pound foolish» = > it is actually quite bizarre, and I'm sure it is just one of the most blatant examples of the organised stupidity that is government today.

«As we are saying to politicians and policy - makers this week and next at the party conferences, if the rule of law is not merely a slogan, governments must act to restore access to justice which has been denied to many.

It is unclear if and when change will occur or even whether there is a rule - maker's appetite for this.

If you think that the Rule of Law requires legal rules to have a single meaning, and that it further requires courts, rather than decision - makers influenced by politics, to have the last word about this meaning, you will think that judicial review has considerable benefits.

Competition between rule makers and enforcers will only emerge if it is used.