From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Fri Nov 28 10:23:35 1997
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.8) id JAA16840
for britdisc-outgoing; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:27:30 GMT
Received: from amsta.leeds.ac.uk (amsta.leeds.ac.uk [129.11.36.1])
by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA16833
for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:27:28 GMT
Received: from newton.leeds.amsta (newton.leeds.ac.uk [129.11.36.64])
by amsta.leeds.ac.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA24996
for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:28:01 GMT
Received: by newton.leeds.amsta (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id JAA16959; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:28:52 GMT
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:28:52 GMT
From: amtsjh@amsta.leeds.ac.uk (S J Hill)
Message-Id: <199711280928.JAA16959@newton.leeds.amsta>
To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
Subject: students - sorry - its a long one
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Of course I couldn't keep quiet forever...
.. and I get involved now because I was involved in
trying to tie down some eligibility rules.
I don't think there is much argument over
1. staff not playing
2. juniors not playing (in fact where there is space
I believe they are being allowed to play at the qualifiers this
and next w/e)
3. players at institutions with no team
In all these cases we have clarified the situation and
I think most people would agree things are moving in the right
direction.
So what about the contentious issue re long-term students
such as myself. In fact, the idea for this rule came mostly
from Southampton wher Dave Murray and Sonic in particular
(they may care to agree...?) felt that a few experienced players
could dominate the tournaments, (and had been doing so for some
years - and they should know - they've been to most (all?) of them
in the last 6 or 7 years I believe.)
[At this point you may - or may not - be interested to know
that
a) a similar rule is used in college ultimate in the States
b) the rule would not have affected any of the players in
last year's student catch team that won both indoors and out.]
Ultimate is still such a very new game (at least in terms of
numbers of players who arrive at Uni never having seen it
before). At the level we are talking about, one experienced
player can make an enormous difference. I can hear lots
of people saying "so what? - thats fair".
I can agree with that point.
But also we felt that overall the tournaments might become
much closer/tighter/etc.. than they have been in the past
and that student competition might become just that.
(As opposed to student-foregone-conclusion.)
Norm points out that there are a few apparent inconsistencies
about experienced players.
1. Foreign students I guess should consider when they
first played student ultimate at home. If that makes
them ineligible under these rules then I guess they
shouldn't play.
2. Players who missed a tournament in their first year?
You have to use something concrete to describe when a
player "starts". ("First starting to practice" could easily
be too vague.)
3. Players who have played ultimate before becoming a student.
I think they are different to players who are halfway through
a PhD and have played in all the student tourneys for
the last 4 years.
I suspect that none of the people who thought this was the
right thing to do would be that dismayed if overall the
concensus was that it was wrong. Its not something I
passionately believe in; I just felt it was probably a
helpful idea.
What about the TEAMS who have trained hard over a few years
but don't have a GB squad member (or two) doing a PhD at
their University? If those people agree with Norm then
we would have to assume that most people would like the
rule changed.
Anyway thats some more background.
At the time, people we spoke to seemed to think that
altho' it was tough, it was probably a good idea.
Maybe some of them will speak up.
(Maybe they won't!)
Good luck to all the teams in student tournaments coming up
(especially those that come from Leeds!)
Si