Forum Search:
RSD No Spam
rec.sport.disc without the spam


Home » RSD » RSD Posts » Doublewide roster problems at Nationals
Doublewide roster problems at Nationals [message #5860] Mon, 10 November 2008 18:59 Go to next message
Baer
Messages: 387
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
Either I missed it, or this surprisingly has not been discussed yet. I
caught this on the UPA Public Statements page:
http://upa.org/upa/about/publicstatements/doublewide

Very similar to what happened to Ambush last year on the women's side.
That caused a massive uproar/meltdown on RSD, but I haven't seen word
one on this yet. What's up?

A couple differences between Doublewide 2008 and Ambush 2007 is that
last year (if I recall correctly), Ambush players posted their
concerns on RSD, leading to the deluge of criticism toward the UPA for
their decision, which was exacerbated by the UPA's total silence.

This year, it looks like Doublewide didn't make a big deal about it on
RSD, which I salute for their more professional handling of the
situation (I'm guessing since I obviously have no actual insight into
Doublewide or the UPA), and the UPA posted a statement discussing (in
detail) their decision making in this case, thus circumventing the
commentary that is about to come.

Of course, since this same rostering issue occurred last year to much
fanfare, there is no excuse for it happening again, but it looks like
the UPA thought it out, and there is no reason to think that
Doublewide did not handle it equally as well. Then they beat Sockeye
on the first day...
Re: Doublewide roster problems at Nationals [message #5871 is a reply to message #5860] Mon, 10 November 2008 19:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
uncle d
Messages: 1
Registered: November 2008
Junior Member
Actually, not so similar to what happened to Ambush last year.
Ambush's captain was suspended for all of Nationals, whereas the
Doublewide captain was held out only for the first day of
competition. An acknowledgement from the UPA, it seems, that last
year's uproar had some merit.
Re: Doublewide roster problems at Nationals [message #5876 is a reply to message #5871] Mon, 10 November 2008 20:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Torre
Messages: 226
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
I just assumed the UPA would email me relevant. I've been emailed more
times by the UPA in the past few months than i have in the past 3
years of UPA membership.
Re: Doublewide roster problems at Nationals [message #5918 is a reply to message #5860] Tue, 11 November 2008 05:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joadntoad
Messages: 1411
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Nov 10, 9:59 pm, Baer <collin.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Either I missed it, or this surprisingly has not been discussed yet. I
> caught this on the UPA Public Statements page:http://upa.org/upa/about/publicstatements/doublewide
>
> Very similar to what happened to Ambush last year on the women's side.
> That caused a massive uproar/meltdown on RSD, but I haven't seen word
> one on this yet. What's up?
>
> A couple differences between Doublewide 2008 and Ambush 2007 is that
> last year (if I recall correctly), Ambush players posted their
> concerns on RSD, leading to the deluge of criticism toward the UPA for
> their decision, which was exacerbated by the UPA's total silence.
>
> This year, it looks like Doublewide didn't make a big deal about it on
> RSD, which I salute for their more professional handling of the
> situation (I'm guessing since I obviously have no actual insight into
> Doublewide or the UPA), and the UPA posted a statement discussing (in
> detail) their decision making in this case, thus circumventing the
> commentary that is about to come.
>
> Of course, since this same rostering issue occurred last year to much
> fanfare, there is no excuse for it happening again, but it looks like
> the UPA thought it out, and there is no reason to think that
> Doublewide did not handle it equally as well. Then they beat Sockeye
> on the first day...

uhmm. maybe the DW guys are just a bunch of spirit zealot upa
loyalists and didnt want to give the upa any negitive press.

OR, maybe the upa cut a deal with them and said they would let the
captian play if they obeyed their "gag order".

It definitely smells a little fishy to me? I mean, why did DW get a
better deal than Ambush??? wasnt it the same exact offense???
Re: Doublewide roster problems at Nationals [message #5920 is a reply to message #5918] Tue, 11 November 2008 05:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dave Branick
Messages: 127
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
>
> It definitely smells a little fishy to me?  I mean, why did DW get a
> better deal than Ambush???  wasnt it the same exact offense???

Try reading the last few paragraphs of the UPA's statement. It
contains the answer to your questions. Here's the link in case it's
too hard to scroll up to the top of this thread:
http://upa.org/upa/about/publicstatements/doublewide
Re: Doublewide roster problems at Nationals [message #5930 is a reply to message #5918] Tue, 11 November 2008 06:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
pizzapinochle
Messages: 488
Registered: November 2008
Senior Member
On Nov 11, 8:38 am, joadnt...@ec.rr.com wrote:
> On Nov 10, 9:59 pm, Baer <collin.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Either I missed it, or this surprisingly has not been discussed yet. I
> > caught this on the UPA Public Statements page:http://upa.org/upa/about/publicstatements/doublewide
>
> > Very similar to what happened to Ambush last year on the women's side.
> > That caused a massive uproar/meltdown on RSD, but I haven't seen word
> > one on this yet. What's up?
>
> > A couple differences between Doublewide 2008 and Ambush 2007 is that
> > last year (if I recall correctly), Ambush players posted their
> > concerns on RSD, leading to the deluge of criticism toward the UPA for
> > their decision, which was exacerbated by the UPA's total silence.
>
> > This year, it looks like Doublewide didn't make a big deal about it on
> > RSD, which I salute for their more professional handling of the
> > situation (I'm guessing since I obviously have no actual insight into
> > Doublewide or the UPA), and the UPA posted a statement discussing (in
> > detail) their decision making in this case, thus circumventing the
> > commentary that is about to come.
>
> > Of course, since this same rostering issue occurred last year to much
> > fanfare, there is no excuse for it happening again, but it looks like
> > the UPA thought it out, and there is no reason to think that
> > Doublewide did not handle it equally as well. Then they beat Sockeye
> > on the first day...
>
> uhmm. maybe the DW guys are just a bunch of spirit zealot upa
> loyalists and didnt want to give the upa any negitive press.
>
> OR, maybe the upa cut a deal with them and said they would let the
> captian play if they obeyed their "gag order".
>
> It definitely smells a little fishy to me?  I mean, why did DW get a
> better deal than Ambush???  wasnt it the same exact offense???

Or maybe the UPA published their decision on their website in the
place that they publish all their public statements, assuming that if
anyone wanted to find public statements from the UPA they would go
to...oh...say the "UPA Public Statements" page. BUt, since all most of
us do is rant on RSD, we just missed it. The UPA has never done
anything except post these rulings on their website, they followed
their normal procedure and it is fishy to you?? ANd yes, you should
try reading it. Actually, here, let me help you even more because I
know you would hate to expend the energy to actually go and do some
research that might disprove your conspiracy theories.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Althought the Competition Committee had determined that the team
captain should be disqualified for the entire Club Championships, in
line with precedent from a very similar case that occurred last year
with Ambush, the board has decided to reduce this penalty to a one day
disqualification for the first day of the Club Championships. The
board felt that a full tournament disqualification was indeed too
severe a penalty for an honest mistake, and that a one day
disqualification was a severe enough penalty to act as a disincentive
for future cases. The board will be discussing this issue in much
greater detail at the upcoming UPA board meeting in order to ensure
that the UPA administration has greater guidance from the board on how
to address situations like these in the future. The board takes full
responsibility on having failed to give that guidance to the
administration after last year's ruling (which we upheld, thereby
giving implicit endorsement of the ruling to the Competition
Committee), and apologizes both to the administration and to our
membership for that failing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TOAD: Here is the part where they explain why this case was handled
differently than Ambush was last year.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One of the main concerns of the board in this case was that a
precedent had been set last year for a nearly identical case in the
women's division, and that reducing the sanction in this case would
give the appearance of a double standard being applied to the open and
women's divisions. However, after soliciting and receiving feedback
from most of the captains of the women's division (including the
captains of Ambush) encouraging us to reduce the penalty, the board
came to the decision that it was more important to rule according to
what we believed would give us the right outcome, than to rule based
solely on the need for parity and upholding precedent. Last year the
board had much less time to rule on the Ambush decision, since we did
not receive the appeal until just before the start of the tournament,
and therefore felt that we did not have the time to deliberate fully
and solicit appropriate feedback from our constituents. Therefore we
were reluctant to modify a decision made by a body that had spent a
significant amount of time deliberating before reaching a decision.
This year we have had more time and therefore feel that we understand
the ramifications better and are better equipped to modify the
competition committee's ruling.

Although the UPA takes many steps to try to inform players of the
rules and regulations, in the end the responsibility to know and abide
by those rules rests with the players themselves. The UPA is
continually striving to improve our system though, and is open to
feedback on ways to ensure that this does not happen again in the
future. This specific issue will also be discussed in much greater
detail at the upcoming UPA board meeting in order to address some of
the problems of disparity between enforcement for top and lower level
teams.

The board is sorry that this situation occurred, particularly in light
of the time, effort, and excitement we know goes into playing in the
Series. Although we truly sympathize with how disappointing this must
be to all involved, we believe it is necessary for there to be
repercussions when the rules are not followed. Otherwise, the rules
become merely suggestions. We hope that this experience will help the
players understand the need for the rules that are in place and the
need to follow those rules carefully. We also hope that the decision
of the committee will serve to further strengthen the legitimacy of
the UPA Championship Series as the world's premier competitive
Ultimate competition.

UPA Board of Directors
Re: Doublewide roster problems at Nationals [message #5941 is a reply to message #5920] Tue, 11 November 2008 08:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Manzell
Messages: 145
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
On Nov 11, 8:50 am, Dave <TUFris...@aol.com> wrote:
> > It definitely smells a little fishy to me?  I mean, why did DW get a
> > better deal than Ambush???  wasnt it the same exact offense???
>
> Try reading the last few paragraphs of the UPA's statement.  It
> contains the answer to your questions.  Here's the link in case it's
> too hard to scroll up to the top of this thread:http://upa.org/upa/about/publicstatements/doublewide

Please. Toad is an idiot, which is being generous.
Re: Doublewide roster problems at Nationals [message #5981 is a reply to message #5941] Tue, 11 November 2008 11:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Keith.Larsen.TX
Messages: 41
Registered: September 2008
Member
I personally don't think this is a big deal and doesn't need to be.
Roster errors in college are huge because you have to go through the
registrar. If someone is caught it in the past has usually be
intentional.

Both Tank and Neil are good spirited players. Maybe the factors that
Neil played with Doublewide in 2007 and all season in 2008 was a
factor? It looks to me like Doublewide just left a player off, didn't
realize it, when they got caught they accepted the punishment and went
on with their lives.

If Tank and Neil didn't play the first day of Nationals then
Doublewide beat Sockeye without two very good players, kudos.

Are the people of this thread wanting Doublewide to be punished more?
Or are they suprised that Doublewide didn't make a fuss?
-Keith
Re: Doublewide roster problems at Nationals [message #5992 is a reply to message #5981] Tue, 11 November 2008 11:49 Go to previous message
Duchamanos
Messages: 52
Registered: September 2008
Member
I think they are more concerned with how elloquently the UPA expressed
itself in its rules and in the explanation of its rules concerning
rostering/inelligible players. While I hate to give Cultimate and
NCUA more press, do you think they would be able to put out a
statement that answers all questions without the questions having to
be asked, especially in the first year of opperation without a set of
rules provided before the second month of their series?

Anyway, Karl Doege for college elligiblity! Four more years!
Previous Topic:NCUA - D3 School Concerns
Next Topic:NCUA Ranking Questions
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Jan 20 15:07:23 PST 2020
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.0RC2.
Copyright ©2001-2009 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software