From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Tue Dec 12 09:46:05 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id eBC9j8129778
	for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 09:45:08 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 eBC9j7829769
	for <britdisc-real@pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 09:45:07 GMT
Received: from venus.open.ac.uk (venus.open.ac.uk [137.108.143.2])
	by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id eBC9j6N08294
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 09:45:07 GMT
Received: from damson.open.ac.uk by venus via SMTP Local (Mailer 3.1);
          Tue, 12 Dec 2000 09:44:59 +0000
Received: from 173049.open.ac.uk by damson.open.ac.uk (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA08345;
          Tue, 12 Dec 00 09:44:54 GMT
Message-Id: <10012120944.AA08345@damson.open.ac.uk>
From: Peter Connor <p.m.connor@open.ac.uk>
To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 09:44:50 -0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Subject: RE: [student-ultimate] Re: Midland's Student Qualifier: GBH Decis ion
Cc: student-ultimate@egroups.com
In-Reply-To: <41F16105E0DAD211AE8A0008C7A4F1270808D0D2@rmexchange.internal.rmplc.net>
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b)
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

> 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.

This argument isn't any of my business but this last got me 
thinking, isn't one of the aims of the rules to try to "provide a 
guideline which describes the way the game is played. It is 
assumed that no ultimate player will intentionally violate the rules; 
there are no harsh penalties for inadvertent infractions but, rather, a 
method for resuming play in a manner which simulates what would 
most likely have occurred had there been no infraction."

does/should this still apply to the way competitions are sorted out 
as well as to problems on the actual field of play?  If so it would 
seem to have some applicability to this argument.

Peter Connor
(noting that the best way to avoid this trouble is to know the rules)