From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue Dec 12 11:11:38 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id eBCBA0U07921
for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:10:00 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 eBCB9w807898
for <britdisc-real@pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:09:58 GMT
Received: from mail.atm.ox.ac.uk (mail.atm.ox.ac.uk [163.1.242.1])
by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id eBCB9vN29411
for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:09:58 GMT
Received: from pakora.atm.ox.ac.uk (IDENT:root@pakora.atm.ox.ac.uk [163.1.242.27])
by mail.atm.ox.ac.uk (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id eBCB9rl01954;
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:09:53 GMT
Received: from localhost (booth@localhost) by pakora.atm.ox.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.8.2) with ESMTP id LAA28921; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:09:52 GMT
X-Authentication-Warning: pakora.atm.ox.ac.uk: booth owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:09:52 +0000 (GMT)
From: Ben Booth <booth@atm.ox.ac.uk>
To: "'rjdesai'" <theraj@supaman.com>
cc: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk, student-ultimate@egroups.com
Subject: RE: [student-ultimate] Re: Midland's Student Qualifier: GBH Decis
ion
In-Reply-To: <41F16105E0DAD211AE8A0008C7A4F1270808D0D2@rmexchange.internal.rmplc.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10012121038460.28720-100000@pakora.atm.ox.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
I agree that eligibility rules should exist, and that once there they
should be used. While I think its reasonable to expect established teams
- like Bears, Muncic and Ow - to be aware of these rules and abide by
them, the problem arose with the new sides. The Midlands qualifiers saw a
record 28 teams entered. Many of them have never competed at that level
before and most of these teams were completly new to us.
How many of us could have quoted the student eligilbility rule before this
tournament - I couldn't. I rely on the more experienced members of my
team to be on top of this. But there isn't that history of of playing in
Student competions in the 6-8 new teams who played last weekend. GBH
hasn't a team trained by an old frisbee hand but a bunch of folk who
decieded that they wanted to play and got themselves there - and into the
final of the qualifiers.
With GBH disqualified, we all lost out, GBH, Bears and student ultimate.
If new teams are out there and are going to come into the sport and put
forward serious challanges - we need to ensure that they are aware of the
situation before the semi-final stage of the competition. This need to be
a wake up call to the student body that we need to ensure that new teams
are aware of the situation before hand. Who failed in this situation GBH
for not checking meticulously enough or Student ultimate for not ensuring
that they were aware.
Ben Booth('s two pence)
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, ANDY COTGREAVE wrote:
> GBH,
> The eligibility rules should exist, and should be in place. Several years
> ago, Mohawks beat Mythago in the Outdoor Student Finals. Three weeks later,
> they were stripped of the title because they fielded students from overseas
> - it so happened that those players *did* make a difference: there wasn't
> much argument to be made.
>
> You ask for leniency in your case, but as Tim pointed out, *you* should have
> known the rules, and *you* should have made it clear to the TD, at the start
> of the tournament, that you wished to see some flexibility in the rules.
>
> It's harsh, but you cannot blame someone else for your own inability to read
> the eligibility rules. They are there for very good reasons. Yeah, Spirit
> can be applied, but Spirit means playing by the rules, just as much as it
> means playing with silly hats on, or getting pissed in the bar.
>
> Andy Cotgreave
> Chevron
> (and I was on the Mythago team that "won" the student nationals that year,
> too!)
>
>
> STANDARD DISCLAIMER: This message is confidential. You should not copy it or
> disclose its contents to anyone. You may use and apply the information only
> for the intended purpose. Internet communications are not secure and
> therefore RM does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this
> message. Any views or opinions presented are only those of the author and
> not those of RM. If this email has come to you in error please delete it and
> any attachments.
>