From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Wed May 24 14:43:07 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e4ODegG22431
	for britdisc-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 14:40:42 +0100 (BST)
Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@snowdrop [137.205.192.31])
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e4ODedp22404
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 24 May 2000 14:40:39 +0100 (BST)
Received: from Interleaf.com (fw.interleaf.com [139.56.200.2])
	by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e4ODecU01787
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 24 May 2000 14:40:38 +0100 (BST)
Received: from leafusa.hq.ileaf.com ([139.56.8.10]) by fw.Interleaf.com with ESMTP id <119041>; Wed, 24 May 2000 09:40:28 -0400
Received: from lon.uk.ileaf.com (lhr.LON.UK.Ileaf.COM [139.56.70.1])
	by leafusa.hq.ileaf.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA08251
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 24 May 2000 09:39:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from io.lon.uk.ileaf.com by lon.uk.ileaf.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4)
	id OAA26528; Wed, 24 May 2000 14:40:13 +0100 (BST)
Received: by io.lon.uk.ileaf.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <LRFF6N9K>; Wed, 24 May 2000 14:40:44 +0100
Message-ID: <91B362889FC3D0118F5E00805FCA0BAEFE9B5D@io.lon.uk.ileaf.com>
From: "Travers, Neil" <neil.travers@BroadVision.com>
To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
Subject: RE: Of course Catch can still gain a good place.
Date:  Wed, 24 May 2000 14:40:42 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

Colin said:
> we really would object to being knocked down a place

As I understand it though, there is no special case being made for Catch.
Having deemed Catch to have not been present at T2, the other rules about
seeding are standard rules (*), aren't they?.


* - I have to admit I can't find them in there, but that is what I thought
was the case. It might be just a question of how you interpret 7.1, but I
had understood there was explicit mention of a team having missed the
previous tournament.