Tim et al,
You misunderstood if you thought I knew that any such rule existed.
Secondly, while I do understand the rule to be necessary to prevent teams
from fielding experienced unelligible players under flimsy pretences, it
surely was not intended to disqualify a team under these circumstances.
Here, to reiterate, the inelligible player in question, Tim, was subbed on,
as with
several other of our inexperienced subs, only when we had a clear lead or
were losing badly i.e. when we could afford to compromise the standard of
the team.
Rules are rules but I feel it is important to look to the intentions behind
those rules and where there is a VALID exception it should be made.
Perhaps this a sentiment shared by others?
Yours,
Raj
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Blair" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Student Ultimate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "rjdesai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 7:10 AM
Subject: [student-ultimate] Re: Midland's Student Qualifier: GBH Decision
> Raj et al,
>
> For those that don't know the details : at the Midlands qualifiers this
> w/e, GBH finished 2nd, beating two of the top 4 seeds in the process.
> However, the decision was made that they would not qualify for nationals
due
> to them having fielded an ineligible player in a student tournament.
>
> This player (I believe his name was Tim), is currently working, and
spending
> two evenings a week at college. The eligibility rules define an eligible
> student as follows :
>
> "Any player is considered a student if, at the time of the tournament,
they
> can show themselves to be registered as a full or part time internal
> student, on a graduating course at the institution under consideration.
Part
> time students must be able to demonstrate that their student status is
their
> primary occupation."
>
> As the player was a part-time student, he had to prove that his primary
> occupation was as such. Two nights a week does not class as a 'primary
> occupation'.
>
> Now on with the discussion:
>
> > Firstly, the player in question is a beginner of this academic
> > term and played (in our key games) a maximum of a couple of
> > points . He therefore made no difference what so ever to us
> > qualifying.
>
> Yes, he may have only played a couple of points, but he still did play.
> Whether he played 1 point all w/e, or every point, he still played.
>
> > Secondly, this issue was raised only once we had displaced Bears
> > 1 (Sunday morning), thereby preventing them from qualifying, and
> > beaten Mwnci See 1, for a place in the final, if it had been
> > raised earlier we would of course have removed our "part time"
> > student (which would have made no difference to the result)
> > immediately and we would have been elligible to qualify.
>
> The only reason it was only bought up at this point was due to the fact
that
> we only learned of it then. If we had known about it on Saturday
afternoon,
> things would have been sorted out then. The only way in which a
difference
> would have made would have been by discovering this _before_ play even
> started on the Saturday morning. Even if he had played one point in the
> first game only, he still played, and made the team ineligible.
>
> > We felt the issue was raised not on grounds of fairness, as any
> > team playing us would have seen the player in question was there
> > more to watch then to play, but because we displaced a team which
> > was expected to win.
>
> The decision was _not_ made because you displaced any top teams. The
> decision was made because we had to enforce the eligibility rules. It
only
> made a difference because you would have qualified. If you had finished <
> 4th, you still would have got a telling off, but it wouldn't have made a
> difference.
>
> > I understand the need to have a fixed rule but I can see no
> > justification, in a specific case as this, for a decision to go
> > against what is clearly the right and fair thing to do.
>
> It may seem unfair. It may actually _be_ unfair. But the rules are in
> place for everyone. If we start making exceptions for one team, soon
enough
> other teams will start saying "you let them do it, so why can't we", and
the
> whole thing becomes a big mess. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and
> unfortuneately you crossed it, whether intentionally or without knowing.
>
> > Also, in future when new teams such as our own enter clarification
> > should be given on such points and should not have to be especially
> > sought since as shown here; how were we supposed to know a part time
> > student is not a student in the eyes of student ulitimate? - the onus
> > should be on those in the game to help new sides not for them to
> > disqualify them on an obscure technicality as here.
>
> Yes, I agree - new sides should be encourage at all times. However, with
> your "how were we supposed to know..." comment - you said yourself on
Sunday
> afternoon that you knew of some limitation as to part-time students. You
> said yourself that you should have checked it out...
>
> > I hope the decision will be reversed in light of this.
>
> I apologise, but my decision will _not_ be reversed.
>
> Tim.
>
> --
> Tim Blair
> National Student Co-ordinator 2000-01
> Captain - Mwnci See
> http://www.mwncisee.co.uk/
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>
> -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
> eGroups eLerts
> It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/4490/_/976547389/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
>
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Blair" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Student Ultimate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "rjdesai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 7:10 AM
Subject: [student-ultimate] Re: Midland's Student Qualifier: GBH Decision
> Raj et al,
>
> For those that don't know the details : at the Midlands qualifiers this
> w/e, GBH finished 2nd, beating two of the top 4 seeds in the process.
> However, the decision was made that they would not qualify for nationals
due
> to them having fielded an ineligible player in a student tournament.
>
> This player (I believe his name was Tim), is currently working, and
spending
> two evenings a week at college. The eligibility rules define an eligible
> student as follows :
>
> "Any player is considered a student if, at the time of the tournament,
they
> can show themselves to be registered as a full or part time internal
> student, on a graduating course at the institution under consideration.
Part
> time students must be able to demonstrate that their student status is
their
> primary occupation."
>
> As the player was a part-time student, he had to prove that his primary
> occupation was as such. Two nights a week does not class as a 'primary
> occupation'.
>
> Now on with the discussion:
>
> > Firstly, the player in question is a beginner of this academic
> > term and played (in our key games) a maximum of a couple of
> > points . He therefore made no difference what so ever to us
> > qualifying.
>
> Yes, he may have only played a couple of points, but he still did play.
> Whether he played 1 point all w/e, or every point, he still played.
>
> > Secondly, this issue was raised only once we had displaced Bears
> > 1 (Sunday morning), thereby preventing them from qualifying, and
> > beaten Mwnci See 1, for a place in the final, if it had been
> > raised earlier we would of course have removed our "part time"
> > student (which would have made no difference to the result)
> > immediately and we would have been elligible to qualify.
>
> The only reason it was only bought up at this point was due to the fact
that
> we only learned of it then. If we had known about it on Saturday
afternoon,
> things would have been sorted out then. The only way in which a
difference
> would have made would have been by discovering this _before_ play even
> started on the Saturday morning. Even if he had played one point in the
> first game only, he still played, and made the team ineligible.
>
> > We felt the issue was raised not on grounds of fairness, as any
> > team playing us would have seen the player in question was there
> > more to watch then to play, but because we displaced a team which
> > was expected to win.
>
> The decision was _not_ made because you displaced any top teams. The
> decision was made because we had to enforce the eligibility rules. It
only
> made a difference because you would have qualified. If you had finished <
> 4th, you still would have got a telling off, but it wouldn't have made a
> difference.
>
> > I understand the need to have a fixed rule but I can see no
> > justification, in a specific case as this, for a decision to go
> > against what is clearly the right and fair thing to do.
>
> It may seem unfair. It may actually _be_ unfair. But the rules are in
> place for everyone. If we start making exceptions for one team, soon
enough
> other teams will start saying "you let them do it, so why can't we", and
the
> whole thing becomes a big mess. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and
> unfortuneately you crossed it, whether intentionally or without knowing.
>
> > Also, in future when new teams such as our own enter clarification
> > should be given on such points and should not have to be especially
> > sought since as shown here; how were we supposed to know a part time
> > student is not a student in the eyes of student ulitimate? - the onus
> > should be on those in the game to help new sides not for them to
> > disqualify them on an obscure technicality as here.
>
> Yes, I agree - new sides should be encourage at all times. However, with
> your "how were we supposed to know..." comment - you said yourself on
Sunday
> afternoon that you knew of some limitation as to part-time students. You
> said yourself that you should have checked it out...
>
> > I hope the decision will be reversed in light of this.
>
> I apologise, but my decision will _not_ be reversed.
>
> Tim.
>
> --
> Tim Blair
> National Student Co-ordinator 2000-01
> Captain - Mwnci See
> http://www.mwncisee.co.uk/
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>
> -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
> eGroups eLerts
> It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/4490/_/976547389/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
>
>
>
