From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue Mar 2 13:57:05 1999
Received: by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA12400
for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 13:56:12 GMT
Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (daffodil [137.205.192.30])
by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA12383
for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 13:56:08 GMT
Received: from renko.ucs.ed.ac.uk (renko.ucs.ed.ac.uk [129.215.13.3])
by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29791
for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 13:56:07 GMT
Received: from eigg.sms.ed.ac.uk (eigg.sms.ed.ac.uk [129.215.13.1])
by renko.ucs.ed.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA09220
for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 13:56:04 GMT
Received: from SMS-EIGG/SpoolDir by eigg.sms.ed.ac.uk (Mercury 1.43);
2 Mar 99 13:56:04 +0000
Received: from SpoolDir by SMS-EIGG (Mercury 1.43); 2 Mar 99 13:56:01 +0000
From: "James Spicer" <9550732@eigg.sms.ed.ac.uk>
To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 13:55:53 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Rules
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52)
Message-ID: <652B924B7C@eigg.sms.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Dear Britdisc
1). Ro Sham Bo statement. This statement comprised of an
>objection to the misunderstanding of the rules of the
>student tournament in respects to the eligability of
>players from first and second teams.
>It was decided that the misunderstanding was due to a
>lack of awareness of the actual rules. Therefore next
>year, when the student co ordinator receives the list of
>contact addresses for each team, he or she will send out a
>full list of student eligability rules so that there can
>be no confusion.
This is right we were objecting to the misunderstanding of
the rules comprising over student ultimate, but the minutes
so not reflect what actully happened at the weekend and are
vague. we feel what occured should be britdisced to
everyone, as certain teams have lost out as a result of
this misunderstanding of the rule, and it shouldn't be
swept under the carpet
So: After the first captains meeting a second was
called by chewy. We were told that some teams had brought
players who had played in second teams over the qualifers
weekend and now were fielding those players in there
qualifed first team. As far as Ro Sham Bo were aware and
this was illegal and had been for many years. (If
a player had played in a second team at the qualifers then
he/she could not play for a different team in the finals,
basically players are rostered)
Basically we had to vote there and then whether we should
allow these players to play.
Our primray objection to allow these teams to field these
players was that Sourcrors and then Ro sham bo 2 had
quailifed by right BUT PULLED OUT conforming to this
rostering rule. To allow the teams to field illegal
players was unjust to Sourceors and RSB 2.
The captains of each team voted and 2 voted againist these
players playing, 6 voted for, 8 abstained.
Ro sham bo feel that the vote should never have even taken
place and it would seem that the rules after this weekend
will be made clear to everyone before the start of next
years round. Does anyone from the BUF know the actual
written rules (not hear say) for student ulitmate. As far
as students in edinburgh are aware the rules are the same
for open as well as student ultimate. Have we been wrong
for so many years?? The student co ordinator next year and
EVERY year should circulate these rules.
James
Ro Sham Bo
J.a.Spicer@sms.ed.ac.uk