From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue Dec 12 00:39:46 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id eBC0a6400779 for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:36:06 GMT 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 eBC0a4800764 for <britdisc-real@pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:36:04 GMT Received: from bedpan.sout.netline.net.uk (bedpan.sout.netline.net.uk [213.40.2.15]) by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id eBC0ZmN28087 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:36:03 GMT Received: from [213.40.20.89] (helo=desai) by bedpan.sout.netline.net.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #2) id 145dPp-0004lL-00; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:35:34 +0000 Message-ID: <001901c06417$3fc870e0$591428d5@desai> Reply-To: "rjdesai" <theraj@supaman.com> From: "rjdesai" <theraj@supaman.com> To: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>, <student-ultimate@egroups.com> References: <003501c06330$75e81d20$730928d5@desai> <03ad01c06384$8529dcc0$3800020a@perkin> Subject: Re: [student-ultimate] Re: Midland's Student Qualifier: GBH Decision Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:40:56 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk 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" <tjb7@aber.ac.uk> To: "Student Ultimate" <student-ultimate@egroups.com> Cc: "rjdesai" <theraj@supaman.com> 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/ > tim@mwncisee.co.uk > > > > > . > > > -------------------------- 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" <tjb7@aber.ac.uk> To: "Student Ultimate" <student-ultimate@egroups.com> Cc: "rjdesai" <theraj@supaman.com> 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/ > tim@mwncisee.co.uk > > > > > . > > > -------------------------- 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/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------_-> > > >