From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue Dec 12 21:40:39 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id eBCLbm515464
for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:37:48 GMT
Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@daffodil [137.205.192.30])
by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id eBCLbk815449
for <britdisc-real@pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:37:46 GMT
Received: from [192.251.30.171] (svvan340.sierrasys.com [192.251.30.171])
by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id eBCLbcY09512
for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:37:40 GMT
Received: from svvan2100.sierrasys.com by [192.251.30.171]
via smtpd (for mail-relay-1.csv.warwick.ac.uk [137.205.128.7]) with SMTP; 12 Dec 2000 21:37:38 UT
Received: by scvanex1.sierrasys.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
id <YS56S96L>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:37:58 -0800
Message-ID: <2417BD0B3A2D5A4086512AD8BDDB1D4EB0A533@scvanex1.sierrasys.com>
From: "Munro, Cassandra" <CassandraMunro@SierraSystems.com>
To: BritDisc <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>, student-ultimate@egroups.com
Subject: RE: [student-ultimate] Midland Qualifiers
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:37:48 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Hi Britdisc folks, it's been fun/amusing seeing this debate. I don't know if
I missed a vital point somewhere, or maybe I just have a different view of
Frisbee coming from a different part of the world, but I sure am curious to
know why a part time student is considered to give a team an unfair
advantage? Is it because they go to school part time and work part time that
their ultimate skills are somehow enhanced? Anyway, the rules that are being
quoted about the eligibility/ineligibility of certain types of students -
are these the WFDF rules? I see others asking where to find these rules, I
am also curious to see them.
Thanks,
Cassandra
from Vancouver, Canada
>"<
http://vul.bc.ca
-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Lowe [mailto:matthew.lowe@ntlworld.com]
Sent: December 12, 2000 11:24 AM
To: BritDisc; student-ultimate@egroups.com
Subject: Re: Midland Qualifiers
Jaime I don't think you are particularly helping Raj, and several others
have mentioned "inexperience" up until this point, but like Jaimie pointed
out, Raj has been playing for at least 3 years at a good level. There were
also several members of the GBH squad who I recognised, that have been
playing for a similar period (I doubt a new team would qualify for
nationals). I do believe one of them should have at least checked on the
eligibility rules before entering just to make sure and I don't feel
inexperience should be an excuse for this side.
Saying that, I would like to know where these eligibility rules are printed.
I'm under the impression that there are no hard rules for this and I think
we ought to have something drawn up to stop further confusion. These rules
are important to make sure teams don't feel hard done by.
Raj, the point you're making saying that your ineligible player did not have
any influence on the result I find to be a little short sighted. Just the
presence of the player effects the game. It allows you to rest better
players, he has the attention of opposition players when on a field and he
can encourage players from the sideline. You cannot say a player has had no
impact on the event. The similar fault exists in footballs offside rule (a
bit of a tangent but it proves my point I think!?!), where players are
allowed to be offside if they are not in an active area of the pitch. On
many occasions this has proven to be a faulty rule as a player on a pitch is
never in an inactive are. If one player is wandering back from an offside
position on the right wing and a pass is put through to a striker in a
central position (the striker being onside at that point of the pass) most
linesmen would not give the offside, but in many situations the defenders
will "step up" or hold their run back because they see the offside player on
the right wing. So although the winger was considered inactive he did
influence other players actions leading to a advantage. Sorry, it was a
round about description but hopefully you get the idea, there are no
inactive players. No matter how little influence you may think they have
had, they have still been an influence.
I personally feel that part time students should not be allowed to take part
in student ultimate as this is one way teams could take an unfair/unspirited
advantage in events. I have had a student team previously suggest to me that
I ought to take a part-time course or night class at their uni, so that I
could play for their team at student events (though I doubt it would have
helped them qualify). The fact is some are suggesting this should be within
the rules yet it is option which could be abused.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe there ought to be spirit towards new teams
to help them develop. I too met Raj before worlds this year and was amongst
those that wanted him to take part. I also know of the lack of Ultimate in
his area and I'm very glad he now has a team going, but spirit towards teams
should not extend quite so far as to deprive another team of a place it
deserved and would have attained legally.
One thing I can say in favour of GBH was that the timing of eligibility
being raised as an issue was very late in the tournament and a little
unspirited. Several teams had asked amongst themselves how eligible GBH were
for a lot of the tournament, but no one had taken the matter further because
most of the "big" teams assumed they'd beat them. Only when these teams lost
there games against them (and as a result their place at nationals) did they
actually go to the event organisers and make their concerns known.
To sum up (sorry about the length of this mail) I think the rules need to be
set in stone and all teams, no matter how new, should have to stick to them.
That's my pennies in, good look GBH at open regionals,
Matt
PS. Another similar issue, what happens if I'm at uni but my institution
does not have an ultimate team? Am I able to play for the nearest student
ultimate team and compete with them at student events?
----- 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.
>