From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue Dec 12 21:05:38 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id eBCL2lr27303
for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:02:47 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 eBCL2j827292
for <britdisc-real@pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:02:46 GMT
Received: from mtcmta03.totalserve.net ([213.27.0.17])
by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id eBCL2jN06193
for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:02:45 GMT
Received: from default ([213.27.33.87]) by
mtcmta03.totalserve.net (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with
SMTP id G5H3UO01.3XF; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:04:00 +0000
Message-ID: <004301c0647e$a4c7fa80$57211bd5@default>
From: "Alastair Findlay" <Alastair@ultimate.totalserve.co.uk>
To: "Jaimie Cross" <jbc102@york.ac.uk>
Cc: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
References: <3A365D19.5CE15E3@york.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Midland Qualifiers
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:01:03 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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
I think this situation needs a mountain load of spirit applied to it.
Ultimate, like any other sport, has rules that govern the way we should play
the game. But we also have SOTG which means that we should apply them in
the manner in which they were intended to apply and not rely on the exact
wordings of each and every rule in order to win a game. This i think
has relevance to the situation we are now in. In my opinion
the part-time/full time student rule (I think the discussions on what is a
full-time student are pretty irrelevant) was introduced to stop experienced
players who just so happen to be doing a part time course playing student
Ultimate for the nearest uni. An example I have from down here in
Brighton is that this year "Mental" Ben Rolfe from Nightfever (hope you
don't mind me using your name Ben) is this year doing a part time course at
a college in Brighton and holds a NUS card. If part time students were
allowed to play he could legitiamtley play for the Mohawks and would have
probably got into an already strong first team.
I'm sure there are numerous other examples up and down the country.
Which brings us back to the problem at hand. I do not believe that this
rule was introduced in order to catch out teams who unintenionnally field
part time students (I'm not saying that GBH unintenionally fielded a part
time student, I wasn't there so I can't comment on that aspect). My
final angle on this would be Did a) GBH intenionally field an
ineligible player and b) did this ineligible player significantly change
the outcome of any one match. If the powers that be can honestly answer
No to both of these questions then I think that the original result should
stand.
ALi (ex) mohawks
p.s There is of course another factor in this argument, namely that the
person on whom it rested upon to make this decision, was actually at the
tournament (I presume it was Tim Blair). Would there have been the same
result if the protests had all occured after the event!!!!!
p.p.s Matt. If you want info about the "playing for your closest team"
debate, I suggest you join the student e-groups list. The ULU debacle
should provide more that enough info on that subject.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jaimie Cross" <jbc102@york.ac.uk>
To: "BritDisc" <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; <student-ultimate@egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 5:15 PM
Subject: Midland Qualifiers
All,
I think it unfair that a decision has already been 'made' in regards to
the eligibility of students. After Catch-22 pulled out of Tour 2, it was
some weeks (standard disclaimer: bad memory) before a final decision was
reached which (surely not) changed the rules that had been decided on
before Tour 1. Similarly, can there not now be some discussion on this
point culminating in a fair and spirited decision.
I met Raj at Junior outdoors in Shropshire this year. He'd played for
juniors in Minneapolis, but because of the lack of a local team, hadn't
been able to play regularly (if at all) since. He came along hoping for
a game. After watching him play on the Saturday we were all amazed that
he wasn't going to be able to go to Germany (partly for financial
reasons, but also because of the atmosphere at the last world's). We
managed to convince him to go and promised to all chip in (I paid £100)
to pay what he couldn't make up.
Believe me it was worth every penny, not only was Raj a major factor for
our success in Germany, but it inspired him enough to put a lot of time
and effort into getting his friends together to form a team so he could
play in the year leading up to University. Yes on his own he managed to
convince an (indoor) squads worth of people to take up Ultimate.
So lets all thank Raj and help him with his commendable work!
NO, fuck that, lets kick him and his team-mates out for a minor
indiscretion (no, not Lewinski minor), and never see most of them play
Ultimate again.
Yeah, good decision.
If you have a problem with the Mike Grant-esque part timer, then simply
tell him that he can't play at Nationals and see how much of a
difference that makes. Or is that too sensible a decision.
Rant over, for now.
Jaimie Cross
Leeds
BTW York had a similar part-timer in our team this year, but no one had
an issue with that.