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


Home » RSD » RSD Posts » Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20)
Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52613] Thu, 18 February 2010 13:56 Go to next message
Scapegoatforlife
Messages: 119
Registered: November 2009
Senior Member
As coach of one of the teams scheduled to attend this weekend, we were notified this afternoon at 1:30pm est by Jason Weddle that the sanctioning for this weekends event had been revoked. I contacted the UPA at 2pm and they confirmed that it had been revoked and that they were currently drafting notification to all teams. As of now (4:40pm est) we have not yet received this communication.

I know very little about what happened or why the sanctioning was revoked, however the fact that it occurred the Thursday before the tournament is highly frustrating. UPA Sanctioning of the tournament means absolutely nothing to Jason and Mike, so the only individuals negatively hurt by revoking sanctioning this late in the process are the teams that will be attending. As a team from the North East, with the weather we have experienced recently this is even more troubling as we have no guarantee now that we will even be able to obtain the required 10 games to be officially ranked (the tournament we were scheduled to attend next weekend has been canceled since there is still over two feet of snow on the fields).

Regardless of whether or not the actions taken by the UPA against Mike and Jason are justified, revoking sanctioning for this weekend is a punishment only for those teams that are attending. Banning Mike and Jason from hosting future tournaments will at least allow teams the choice to attend or not. Teams attending this weekend are now in a position where we have no other alternatives. I do not know yet if there will be any appeal process or possible exception made for this weekend but based on the limited information I have received that seems highly unlikely.


Jonathan Hoffman
Coach, Shippensburg University
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52617 is a reply to message #52613] Thu, 18 February 2010 14:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
> UPA Sanctioning of the tournament means absolutely nothing
> to Jason and Mike,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

----to be clear....it means a lot to us because we know that it's a
draw to teams.

it means nothing to us....in that WE don't need sanctioned games.

what we are doing...is all for the teams...and for the sport.

we want the sanctioning, because we know it helps the teams.
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52621 is a reply to message #52613] Thu, 18 February 2010 14:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
MD
Messages: 98
Registered: September 2008
Member
This really sucks for the teams involved. I hope the UPA agrees to
grant an exception for this weekend, as Jonathan wrote a very
convincing post.

My recommendation is to keep hounding them to grant the exception. All
of the teams that are going this weekend should do it. Even if you
don't hear back from them before the weekend, go and play your games
out. There's a chance that the UPA might grant that exception after
the fact, in which case your game results would count. The worst
possible thing you can do at this point IMO is to not show up and/or
boycott the tourney to protest to the UPA. (Hopefully nobody was
thinking of doing this anyway.)
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52646 is a reply to message #52613] Thu, 18 February 2010 16:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jim
Messages: 114
Registered: November 2008
Senior Member
On Feb 18, 4:56 pm, Jonathan Hoffman <scapegoatforl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> As coach of one of the teams scheduled to attend this
> weekend, we were notified this afternoon at 1:30pm est by
> Jason Weddle that the sanctioning for this weekends event
> had been revoked.  I contacted the UPA at 2pm and they
> confirmed that it had been revoked and that they were
> currently drafting notification to all teams.  As of now
> (4:40pm est) we have not yet received this communication.
>
> I know very little about what happened or why the
> sanctioning was revoked, however the fact that it occurred
> the Thursday before the tournament is highly frustrating.
> UPA Sanctioning of the tournament means absolutely nothing
> to Jason and Mike, so the only individuals negatively hurt
> by revoking sanctioning this late in the process are the
> teams that will be attending.  As a team from the North
> East, with the weather we have experienced recently this is
> even more troubling as we have no guarantee now that we will
> even be able to obtain the required 10 games to be
> officially ranked (the tournament we were scheduled to
> attend next weekend has been canceled since there is still
> over two feet of snow on the fields).
>
> Regardless of whether or not the actions taken by the UPA
> against Mike and Jason are justified, revoking sanctioning
> for this weekend is a punishment only for those teams that
> are attending.  Banning Mike and Jason from hosting future
> tournaments will at least allow teams the choice to attend
> or not.  Teams attending this weekend are now in a position
> where we have no other alternatives.  I do not know yet if
> there will be any appeal process or possible exception made
> for this weekend but based on the limited information I have
> received that seems highly unlikely.  
>
> Jonathan Hoffman
> Coach, Shippensburg University
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com

Why the last minute change from the UPA? Makes the upa look very very
bad.
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52648 is a reply to message #52646] Thu, 18 February 2010 17:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
throw
Messages: 743
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
jim rover: Why the last minute change from the UPA? Makes the upa look
very very
> bad.



Jim,

Why does it make the upa bad?

Peter Mc
Columbia mo

(off and on member since 1983...1 time visitor)
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52649 is a reply to message #52648] Thu, 18 February 2010 17:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
throw
Messages: 743
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
excuse me.....why does this make the UPA "look "bad?"

Peter Mc
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52650 is a reply to message #52613] Thu, 18 February 2010 17:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Matt
Messages: 46
Registered: November 2008
Member
This was just posted on the UPA website:

"UPA Public Statement Regarding Sanctioning of Wilmington 8’s
Tournaments

On Wednesday, Feb. 17, the UPA received disturbing complaints from the
New Hanover County (N.C.) Parks and Recreation Department regarding
inappropriate use of the playing fields and subsequent damage to the
property during last weekend’s Wilmington 8’s Tournament (Feb. 13-14).
This event was sanctioned by the UPA. Due to the serious nature of the
complaints, as well as non-compliance with UPA-event sanctioning
guidelines and the signed contract for the event, we have informed the
event organizers that their privilege to act in the same capacity for
future UPA-sanctioned events has been revoked for one year. This
ruling is consistent with UPA policy for all sanctioned events.

However, due to another upcoming Wilmington 8’s Tournament that was
scheduled for this weekend (Feb. 20-21) and was previously sanctioned
by the UPA, we elected to offer an option for the event to be
sanctioned. After being provided this option – which required that
extra conditions be met in order to ensure adherence to UPA event
guidelines and codes of conduct – the organizers have elected not to
re-apply and have decided to hold the tournament as a non-sanctioned
event. As such, game results for the event will not count toward UPA
regular-season rankings.

It should be noted that the location of this weekend’s Wilmington 8’s
event will be changed because the New Hanover County Parks and
Recreation Department will not allow the tournament organizers to
return. In addition, a separate conduct issue is being investigated
following an alleged incident at last weekend’s event. The above-
mentioned revocation of UPA sanctioning privileges is not related to
this alleged incident."

Discuss.
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52655 is a reply to message #52650] Thu, 18 February 2010 18:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
The Dick Formerly Kno
Messages: 189
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
"we elected to offer an option for the event to be
sanctioned. After being provided this option – which required that
extra conditions be met in order to ensure adherence to UPA event
guidelines and codes of conduct – the organizers have elected not to
re-apply and have decided to hold the tournament as a non-sanctioned
event."

It looks like its not the upa that pulled the sanctioning. At least
according to the upa, it was the organizers who pulled it. Now it
feels like we're getting into "he said she said" arguments.
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52663 is a reply to message #52655] Thu, 18 February 2010 19:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mvuong
Messages: 709
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
Well it would depend on what these "extra conditions" would be wouldn't it?
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52667 is a reply to message #52663] Thu, 18 February 2010 20:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Scapegoatforlife
Messages: 119
Registered: November 2009
Senior Member
I have been and continue to be in contact with the UPA regarding this. As it is now clear, the penalties are a result of the damage done to the field site used last weekend. Throughout my discussions with Will Deaver and Tom Crawford they have continued to maintain that there was no possible way for these games to count to the regular season.

My main concern at this point is related to specifically this upcoming tournament. Not allowing these specific games to count only harms the teams that will be in attendance. As has been stated, the event organizers were given an option which would have allowed sanctioning to continue for this weekend's event but chose not to. What has not been made clear is what those options were. Through correspondence with Jason Weddle, he indicated that the options included having a new set of organizers for the event. I offered to personally organize the tournament and to also get in touch with the new field site to ensure that I was not a "figurehead" to get around the UPA policy, however Jason also stated that there were various other stipulations in place including not allowing Mike Gerics to participate in the tournament in any manor. I have not been able to confirm the above information with anyone at the UPA so the specifics of what the options were for Jason and Mike are still unclear.

With that said, one of the primary reasons for only having UPA sanctioned tournaments count towards the regular season is due to the fact that only sanctioned events carry any sort of roster restrictions. I feel that there should be a way, in this special circumstance, to validate rosters so that the games still count without having the tournament itself endorsed in any way by the UPA. This would obviously be an exception for this tournament only but would provide the ability for teams to still have their results count. Having a game be part of the "regular season" does not infer sponsorship or sanctioning of the entire event itself. I do not understand how there is not a way to work out the roster issues so that the games can be counted while still not having the UPA sanction or endorse this event.

I empathize with the UPA's position but still strongly feel that there are alternative solutions available which would not result in the teams attending this weekends tournament being penalized.

Solution 1: Sanction the tournament outright - for liability purposes this seems unlikely however there was clearly an unspecified option available to the event organizers so perhaps whatever these options were are still a possibility. Without fully clarifying what the option is, it is difficult for me to appeal to the organizers of the event and ask them to comply.

Solution 2: Allow the games to count toward the regular season without sanctioning the event - this would require some special roster validation process be approved for this event but would still allow the games to count for the new regular season.

The most disappointing aspect of this is the timing for the teams involved. We have very little time to appeal this decision either with the UPA or with the tournament organizers. We also were not given any information until after the decision had already been made - perhaps with pressure from the participating teams the organizers would have reconsidered complying to the UPA's option but now that does not even appear to be a possibility. I still have an e-mail out to the UPA for further information and possible solutions however I spoke at length with the UPA this evening and they made it fairly clear that they were not going to be willing to reconsider the decision.
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52669 is a reply to message #52663] Thu, 18 February 2010 21:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Scapegoatforlife
Messages: 119
Registered: November 2009
Senior Member
I have been and continue to be in contact with the UPA regarding
this. Throughout my discussions with Will Deaver and Tom Crawford
they have continued to maintain that there is no possible way for the
games this weekend to count to the regular season. As it is now
clear, the penalties are a result of the damage done to the field site
used last weekend. My main concern at this point is related to
specifically this upcoming tournament. Not allowing these games to
count only harms the teams that will be in attendance.

As has been stated, the event organizers were given an option which
would have allowed sanctioning to continue for this weekend's event
but chose not to. What has not been made clear is what those options
were. Through correspondence with Jason Weddle, he indicated that the
options included having a new set of organizers for the event. I
offered to Jason to personally organize the tournament and to also get
in touch with the new field site to coordinate my involvement, however
Jason also stated that there were various other stipulations in place
including not allowing Mike Gerics to participate in the tournament in
any manor. I have not been able to confirm the above information with
anyone at the UPA so the specifics of what the options were for Jason
and Mike are still unclear.

With that said, one of the primary reasons for only having UPA
sanctioned tournaments count towards the regular season is due to the
fact that only sanctioned events carry any sort of roster
restrictions. I feel that there should be a way, in this special
circumstance, to validate rosters so that the games still count
without having the tournament itself endorsed in any way by the UPA.
This would obviously be an exception for this tournament only but
would provide the ability for teams to still have their results
count. Having a game be part of the "regular season" does not infer
sponsorship or sanctioning of the entire event itself. I do not
understand how there is not a way to work out the roster issues so
that the games can be counted while still not having the UPA sanction
or endorse this event.

I empathize with the UPA's position but still strongly feel that there
are alternative solutions available which would not result in the
teams attending this weekends tournament being penalized.

Solution 1: Sanction the tournament outright - for liability purposes
this seems unlikely however there was clearly an unspecified option
available to the event organizers so perhaps whatever these options
were are still a possibility. Without fully clarifying what the
option is, it is difficult for me to appeal to the organizers of the
event and ask them to comply.

Solution 2: Allow the games to count toward the regular season without
sanctioning the event - this would require some special roster
validation process be approved for this event but would still allow
the games to count for the new regular season.

The most disappointing aspect of this is the timing for the teams
involved. We have very little time to appeal this decision either
with the UPA or with the tournament organizers. We also were not
given any information until after the decision had already been made -
perhaps with pressure from the participating teams the organizers
would have reconsidered complying to the UPA's option but now that
does not even appear to be a possibility. I still have an e-mail out
to the UPA for further information and possible solutions however I
spoke at length with the UPA this evening and it was made fairly clear
that they were not going to be willing to reconsider the decision.
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52671 is a reply to message #52669] Thu, 18 February 2010 21:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CJ
Messages: 9
Registered: October 2008
Junior Member
I can definitely see this not getting changed and the results from UOA
this weekend not counting towards the required 10. My big question
now, is in regards to the 3/28 "end of the regular season" date. We
have two tournaments after this date, but before Sectionals, that
could potentially be sanctioned and count towards our rankings. Is
there a good reason why this date was chosen? It definitely makes it
more difficult for NE teams to get enough games (especially with what
happened in Vegas and UOA). We're traveling so much this year
(Florida, Vegas, Wilmington, and Georgia for Spring Break) that it
will be difficult to get the funding to try and travel to another
tournament before the cut-off date.

Just wondering what other people think about this and if there are any
ways to push the date back.

CJ
UConn #14

On Feb 19, 12:00 am, "Jonathan (Finch)" <scapegoatforl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I have been and continue to be in contact with the UPA regarding
> this.  Throughout my discussions with Will Deaver and Tom Crawford
> they have continued to maintain that there is no possible way for the
> games this weekend to count to the regular season.  As it is now
> clear, the penalties are a result of the damage done to the field site
> used last weekend. My main concern at this point is related to
> specifically this upcoming tournament.  Not allowing these games to
> count only harms the teams that will be in attendance.
>
> As has been stated, the event organizers were given an option which
> would have allowed sanctioning to continue for this weekend's event
> but chose not to.  What has not been made clear is what those options
> were.  Through correspondence with Jason Weddle, he indicated that the
> options included having a new set of organizers for the event.  I
> offered to Jason to personally organize the tournament and to also get
> in touch with the new field site to coordinate my involvement, however
> Jason also stated that there were various other stipulations in place
> including not allowing Mike Gerics to participate in the tournament in
> any manor.  I have not been able to confirm the above information with
> anyone at the UPA so the specifics of what the options were for Jason
> and Mike are still unclear.
>
> With that said, one of the primary reasons for only having UPA
> sanctioned tournaments count towards the regular season is due to the
> fact that only sanctioned events carry any sort of roster
> restrictions.  I feel that there should be a way, in this special
> circumstance, to validate rosters so that the games still count
> without having the tournament itself endorsed in any way by the UPA.
> This would obviously be an exception for this tournament only but
> would provide the ability for teams to still have their results
> count.  Having a game be part of the "regular season" does not infer
> sponsorship or sanctioning of the entire event itself.  I do not
> understand how there is not a way to work out the roster issues so
> that the games can be counted while still not having the UPA sanction
> or endorse this event.
>
> I empathize with the UPA's position but still strongly feel that there
> are alternative solutions available which would not result in the
> teams attending this weekends tournament being penalized.
>
> Solution 1: Sanction the tournament outright - for liability purposes
> this seems unlikely however there was clearly an unspecified option
> available to the event organizers so perhaps whatever these options
> were are still a possibility.  Without fully clarifying what the
> option is, it is difficult for me to appeal to the organizers of the
> event and ask them to comply.
>
> Solution 2: Allow the games to count toward the regular season without
> sanctioning the event - this would require some special roster
> validation process be approved for this event but would still allow
> the games to count for the new regular season.
>
> The most disappointing aspect of this is the timing for the teams
> involved.  We have very little time to appeal this decision either
> with the UPA or with the tournament organizers.  We also were not
> given any information until after the decision had already been made -
> perhaps with pressure from the participating teams the organizers
> would have reconsidered  complying to the UPA's option but now that
> does not even appear to be a possibility.  I still have an e-mail out
> to the UPA for further information and possible solutions however I
> spoke at length with the UPA this evening and it was made fairly clear
> that they were not going to be willing to reconsider the decision.
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52679 is a reply to message #52655] Fri, 19 February 2010 03:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
> It looks like its not the upa that pulled the sanctioning.  
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---did they post the conditions for re-applying?
2 new organizers.
i wouldn't be allowed on site because the GMU complaint.
re-submit paper work....

more, i'm sure.

we're already in trouble with the county and our local community for
mucking up the fields....
doesn't seem like the upa's job to also punish the teams...

and...they only 'suggest' not playing in foul weather.

at any rate, the upa, of course, is going to make themselves
righteous...
and they are going to do whatever it takes to make their partners at
Cultimate look good for scheduling 100 team scavenger hunts.
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52708 is a reply to message #52679] Fri, 19 February 2010 05:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
thatguy
Messages: 15
Registered: December 2009
Junior Member
UOA - Take one for the team and prop up two associates as the event organizers and get the event sanctioned!

Mike - It sucks if you didn't do anything wrong to GWU. You're only innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The UPA must error on the side of caution and cover any possible liabilities. If a school teacher had a shoving complaint against them, there'd be a substitute the next day.
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52709 is a reply to message #52679] Fri, 19 February 2010 05:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jim
Messages: 114
Registered: November 2008
Senior Member
On Feb 19, 6:46 am, Reggie Fanelli <ageric...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > It looks like its not the upa that pulled the sanctioning.  
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ---did they post the conditions for re-applying?
> 2 new organizers.
> i wouldn't be allowed on site because the GMU complaint.
> re-submit paper work....
>
> more, i'm sure.
>
> we're already in trouble with the county and our local community for
> mucking up the fields....
> doesn't seem like the upa's job to also punish the teams...
>
> and...they only 'suggest' not playing in foul weather.
>
> at any rate, the upa, of course, is going to make themselves
> righteous...
> and they are going to do whatever it takes to make their partners at
> Cultimate look good for scheduling 100 team scavenger hunts.

Were you told to not play on the fields in those conditions by the
county?
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52712 is a reply to message #52708] Fri, 19 February 2010 05:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jim
Messages: 114
Registered: November 2008
Senior Member
On Feb 19, 8:38 am, Greg Jarred <denver.ultim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> UOA - Take one for the team and prop up two associates as
> the event organizers and get the event sanctioned!
>
> Mike - It sucks if you didn't do anything wrong to GWU.
> You're only innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
> The UPA must error on the side of caution and cover any
> possible liabilities.  If a school teacher had a shoving
> complaint against them, there'd be a substitute the next
> day.
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com

What did GWU do?
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52713 is a reply to message #52709] Fri, 19 February 2010 06:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Scapegoatforlife
Messages: 119
Registered: November 2009
Senior Member

I am still very unclear as to what specifically the "new" sanctioning requirements were for this tournament. What is the reasoning behind the secrecy to this? The guidelines for applying for sanctioning are available, so why would these new special options not be made public?

Based on the information I have received from Jason and Mike, there seemed to be the following:
1) Jason and Mike need to step down as the tournament organizers
2) New tournament organizer would be needed to run the tournament
3) Mike would not be allowed to participate in any capacity or be on the premises for the event
4) other stipulations which have not been clarified by either Jason, Mike or the UPA

In reference to requirement three specifically, per the UPA's statement, the other alleged incidents did not have any impact on their revoking sanctioning. If that is the case, how can they place stipulations on the alleged perpetrator as a requirement to then receive this new sanctioning? I do not think that Jason or Mike would have a problem with either condition one or two of the above requirements. I suspect that they would, for this weekend only, submit to having another individual or individuals organize the specifics of the event. If the concern is truly for the fields, then having new organizers as the individuals responsible for determining whether or not the fields are playable should alleviate the concerns that they had which caused them to revoke sanctioning.

Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52716 is a reply to message #52712] Fri, 19 February 2010 06:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
TJ
Messages: 9
Registered: January 2010
Junior Member
GMU


On Feb 19, 8:58 am, jim <rover...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 8:38 am, Greg Jarred <denver.ultim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > UOA - Take one for the team and prop up two associates as
> > the event organizers and get the event sanctioned!
>
> > Mike - It sucks if you didn't do anything wrong to GWU.
> > You're only innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
> > The UPA must error on the side of caution and cover any
> > possible liabilities.  If a school teacher had a shoving
> > complaint against them, there'd be a substitute the next
> > day.
> > --
> > Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
>
> What did GWU do?
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52718 is a reply to message #52716] Fri, 19 February 2010 06:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rich Dana
Messages: 16
Registered: October 2009
Junior Member
So wait...Gerics and Jason get suspended + UOA loses its sanctioning
for "field issues" but we hear nothing about Mardi Gras?

I only have the pictures from Aguilar's blog to go off of but someone
explain to me how the fields from Mardi Gras don't fail to meet the
UPA's requirements...(or was Mardi Gras not sanctioned?)

http://monup.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/weekend-roundup-in-whi ch-teams-actually-play-ultimate/
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52730 is a reply to message #52718] Fri, 19 February 2010 08:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
The Dick Formerly Kno
Messages: 189
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
> I only have the pictures from Aguilar's blog to go off of but someone
> explain to me how the fields from Mardi Gras don't fail to meet the
> UPA's requirements...(or was Mardi Gras not sanctioned?)

Being at Mardi Gras (which was sanctioned), I can assure you that they
were the worst playing conditions I have ever experienced in my 22
years of competitive athletics and 4 years of ultimate. The issue, I
think, was that the field manager for Mardi Gras was ok with the
damage to be done. My understanding of the UOA 8s situation (coming
only from rsd, mind you) was that the field manager took issue with
the damage and contacted the UPA directly in complaint. The UPA, as
the only realistic way to save face publicly, had to cut ties with the
tournament organizers. Just my $.02

Dennis
Truman St. #11
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52734 is a reply to message #52730] Fri, 19 February 2010 08:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ThaddeusGolaas
Messages: 67
Registered: September 2008
Location: Minneapolis
Member
Was 2009 Central Club Regionals UPA sanctioned? The fields in South Bend were saturated to the point that cleats were submerged in mud.

The UPA doesn't have to cut ties with UOA 8s organizers to "save face" with field managers in Wilmington. An apology and written reprimand to the organizers would probably be enough. A year long suspension is overkill and speaks of a separate agenda.

Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52737 is a reply to message #52734] Fri, 19 February 2010 08:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CBrowning
Messages: 190
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Feb 19, 10:34 am, ThaddeusGolaas <ThaddeusGol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Was 2009 Central Club Regionals UPA sanctioned?  The fields
> in South Bend were saturated to the point that cleats were
> submerged in mud.
>
> The UPA doesn't have to cut ties with UOA 8s organizers to
> "save face" with field managers in Wilmington.  An apology
> and written reprimand to the organizers would probably be
> enough.  A year long suspension is overkill and speaks of a
> separate agenda.
>
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com

I gotta agree. The UPA made their decision within 24 hours of
receiving the complaint (they indicated they received a call on
Wednesday). I would think they would want to get more information
regarding the damage, as well as speak with Jason, Mike, teams in
attendance, and maybe try and get some pictures of the damage. A snap
judgement like this (as well as the UPA's past interraction with the
UOA) makes me wonder if they are using this as an opportunity to stick
it to Mike.

I think the observor system being implemented at the UOA tournaments
is probably indicative of where officiating in ultimate is heading.
It's a shame to see that kind of growth turned to stagnation because
of pettiness. Perhaps after a thorough investigation, the UPA might
find that the damage to the fields was serious enough to require major
consequences; however, there is no way such an investigation was
carried out.
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52740 is a reply to message #52734] Fri, 19 February 2010 08:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Duchamanos
Messages: 52
Registered: September 2008
Member
Why is everyone so concerned about getting the 10 games? Just play
out the consolation bracket after the North East teams lose to more
talented regions in the pre-quarters and you'll get 7 to 8 games in
one weekend. Add another 2-3 at a crappy, small NE tournament and
you've successfully got the 10 games and still lack the strength bid.
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52748 is a reply to message #52730] Fri, 19 February 2010 09:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rich Dana
Messages: 16
Registered: October 2009
Junior Member
That makes sense and don't dispute that and perhaps that is the sole
reason for the suspension of 8's, Gerics, and Weddle.

However, and like you I only have the UPA statement and Mike Gerics to
base this on, Mike and Jason never received notification that they
couldn't hold play on Sunday, the fields were unlocked, and the
complaint wasn't received until Wednesday after the tournament.

While the field manager for Mardi Gras may have allowed play, and
kudos for him to allowing continued play, there is no requirement for
approval only the judgement/discretion of the tournament organizer.
Obviously I am not encouraging going against a field owner/manager but
according to Mike the fields hadn't been closed, they tried called the
county with no success, and the fields were unlocked.

Let me make clear that I am not criticizing Mardi Gras in any way,
shape, or form. Truth be told, I am commending them and the teams
involved for pushing (sloshing?) through. I just think that the
statement/rationale for the suspension to the great detriment of the
college teams that had nothing to do with this is lacking at best.
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52751 is a reply to message #52748] Fri, 19 February 2010 10:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tooth
Messages: 36
Registered: January 2010
Member
As a player this past weekend, I will be able to post some photos soon
to give an idea of what the fields were like. Sure, they were torn up
but if I'm not mistaken someone from the county came and opened the
park each day (we were waiting outside for a bit on Saturday) so if
they had a problem they could have not allowed us to play on Sunday.
My ankles and feet were fine, by far the worst part was the cold mud
after layout out. I actually found that getting the under armor off
helped out a great deal.

Since we drove 13+ hours to play at Wilmington, I'm really glad that
Gerics and co. did whatever was needed to give us games. I'm sorry for
the teams coming out this weekend that have to live with this knee-
jerk reaction from the UPA. All I know is despite the conditions it
was one of the better tournaments I've played in, and for sanctioning
to be taken away for whatever reason -- something is not adding up.

My suggestion, although it is worth nothing, would be to yet again be
the bigger man and bite whatever bullet you have to in order to try to
get this weekends games sanctioned for the teams making the long trip.
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52753 is a reply to message #52751] Fri, 19 February 2010 10:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
T H
Messages: 1142
Registered: July 2009
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Senior Member
Tooth wrote on Fri, 19 February 2010 13:28
As a player this past weekend, I will be able to post some photos soon
to give an idea of what the fields were like. Sure, they were torn up
but if I'm not mistaken someone from the county came and opened the
park each day (we were waiting outside for a bit on Saturday) so if
they had a problem they could have not allowed us to play on Sunday.
My ankles and feet were fine, by far the worst part was the cold mud
after layout out. I actually found that getting the under armor off
helped out a great deal.

Since we drove 13+ hours to play at Wilmington, I'm really glad that
Gerics and co. did whatever was needed to give us games. I'm sorry for
the teams coming out this weekend that have to live with this knee-
jerk reaction from the UPA. All I know is despite the conditions it
was one of the better tournaments I've played in, and for sanctioning
to be taken away for whatever reason -- something is not adding up.

My suggestion, although it is worth nothing, would be to yet again be
the bigger man and bite whatever bullet you have to in order to try to
get this weekends games sanctioned for the teams making the long trip.


looking forward to these pics.
and i believe the deadline has passed for their chance to have this weekend sanctioned- from what Mike has alluded to, the deadline to agree w/ the UPA's new stipulations was less than 12 hours(correct me if i'm wrong Jason/Mike) and ended sometime yesterday afternoon.





Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52754 is a reply to message #52753] Fri, 19 February 2010 10:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tooth
Messages: 36
Registered: January 2010
Member
If it is too late for sanctioning, maybe they the UPA can still have
teams do the rostering and get these games to still count as an
exception considering the circumstances? They wouldn't get the
insurance benefits and the UPA would not be liable, but not penalize
the teams that are making the trip. I'm sure I read somewhere suggest
this previously, seems like a solid solution.

The pictures don't look as bad as Mardi Gras IMO, a lot less standing
pools of water. Considering they weren't even told until Wednesday
that they had a problem with the fields, it seems like this will
effect the decisions of a lot of TDs to err on the side of caution in
future scenarios unless you figure they are just sticking it to
Gerics. Imagine the ramifications if they did this to Cultimate after
field owners got mad after Vegas or RollCall last year.

On Feb 19, 1:35 pm, Torre <torre.harg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tooth wrote on Fri, 19 February 2010 13:28
>
>
>
> > As a player this past weekend, I will be able to post
> > some photos soon
> > to give an idea of what the fields were like. Sure, they
> > were torn up
> > but if I'm not mistaken someone from the county came and
> > opened the
> > park each day (we were waiting outside for a bit on
> > Saturday) so if
> > they had a problem they could have not allowed us to
> > play on Sunday.
> > My ankles and feet were fine, by far the worst part was
> > the cold mud
> > after layout out. I actually found that getting the
> > under armor off
> > helped out a great deal.
>
> > Since we drove 13+ hours to play at Wilmington, I'm
> > really glad that
> > Gerics and co. did whatever was needed to give us games.
> > I'm sorry for
> > the teams coming out this weekend that have to live with
> > this knee-
> > jerk reaction from the UPA. All I know is despite the
> > conditions it
> > was one of the better tournaments I've played in, and
> > for sanctioning
> > to be taken away for whatever reason -- something is not
> > adding up.
>
> > My suggestion, although it is worth nothing, would be to
> > yet again be
> > the bigger man and bite whatever bullet you have to in
> > order to try to
> > get this weekends games sanctioned for the teams making
> > the long trip.
>
> looking forward to these pics.
> and i believe the deadline has passed for their chance to
> have this weekend sanctioned- from what Mike has alluded to,
> the deadline to agree w/ the UPA's new stipulations was less
> than 12 hours(correct me if i'm wrong Jason/Mike) and ended
> sometime yesterday afternoon.
>
> --
> Torre
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52755 is a reply to message #52754] Fri, 19 February 2010 11:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
T H
Messages: 1142
Registered: July 2009
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Senior Member
Tooth wrote on Fri, 19 February 2010 13:58
...it seems like this will
effect the decisions of a lot of TDs to err on the side of caution in
future scenarios...


so be more like Cultimate?

who needs ultimate when you can go on a scavenger hunt!
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52760 is a reply to message #52754] Fri, 19 February 2010 11:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
bslade86
Messages: 357
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
***
If it is too late for sanctioning, maybe they the UPA can still have
teams do the rostering and get these games to still count as an
exception considering the circumstances? They wouldn't get the
insurance benefits and the UPA would not be liable, but not penalize
the teams that are making the trip. I'm sure I read somewhere suggest
this previously, seems like a solid solution.
***

That would defeat the purpose of revoking the sanctioning- namely, a quick and painful way to make people wary of future UOA tournaments. If they let the regular season games occur, the UOA is happy, the teams are happy, and the UPA has not stuck it to Mike G. This way at least, there is more unhappiness to spread around.

This is, of course, taking UPA at their word that this is unrelated to George Mason's beef with Mike G, and has to do with field destruction. In which case their restrictions for getting the tournament sanctioned does not make much sense at all.
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52780 is a reply to message #52737] Fri, 19 February 2010 13:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On Feb 19, 11:47 am, CBrowning <cb.brown...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The UPA doesn't have to cut ties with UOA 8s organizers to
> > "save face" with field managers in Wilmington.  An apology
> > and written reprimand to the organizers would probably be
> > enough.  A year long suspension is overkill and speaks of a
> > separate agenda.
>
> I gotta agree.  The UPA made their decision within 24 hours of
> receiving the complaint (they indicated they received a call on
> Wednesday).  I would think they would want to get more information
> regarding the damage, as well as speak with Jason, Mike, teams in
> attendance, and maybe try and get some pictures of the damage.  A snap
> judgement like this (as well as the UPA's past interraction with the
> UOA) makes me wonder if they are using this as an opportunity to stick
> it to Mike.

"STICKIN IT!!!!" (gc)
----------------------------------------------
>
> I think the observor system being implemented at the UOA tournaments
> is probably indicative of where officiating in ultimate is heading.

which is not where MOST upa administrators want to see it go.
uhmmmmmm?
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------
> It's a shame to see that kind of growth turned to stagnation because
> of pettiness.

what do you think the P stands for in upa?
--------------------------------------------------




 Perhaps after a thorough investigation, the UPA might
> find that the damage to the fields was serious enough to require major
> consequences; however, there is no way such an investigation was
> carried out.

yea, its obvious they are killing two birds (three is you count
ultimates progression) with one stone.
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52781 is a reply to message #52748] Fri, 19 February 2010 13:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On Feb 19, 12:56 pm, Rich Dana <richd...@gmail.com> wrote:.
>
> Let me make clear that I am not criticizing Mardi Gras in any way,
> shape, or form. Truth be told, I am commending them and the teams
> involved for pushing (sloshing?) through. I just think that the
> statement/rationale for the suspension to the great detriment of the
> college teams that had nothing to do with this is lacking at best.

AND, in leiu of the tremendous contributions mike and jason were
making to the advancement of the observer system, to the detriment of
the sport itself as well.
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52791 is a reply to message #52754] Fri, 19 February 2010 15:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kyle Weisbrod
Messages: 195
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Feb 19, 1:58 pm, Tooth <dferr...@buffalo.edu> wrote:
" it seems like this will
> effect the decisions of a lot of TDs to err on the side of caution in
> future scenarios"

Yeah, how awful is that! Tournament directors are going to start
making decisions with the results of those decisions in mind! And
they will stop tournaments when the fields are being damaged. It's
going to be terrible.

Seriously...everyone needs to take a step back and think about why
this is a good decision for the sport. If tournaments ruin fields
resulting in thousands of dollars worth of resodding while people who
use those fields aren't allowed to use them and the field owners stop
allowing tournaments and local leagues to use those fields that is bad
for all of us. I can't believe how many people here are acting like
the UPA is out of line on this decision. Yes, the decision*may*
affect a small number of team's eligibility for the UPA rankings
(which may or may not affect a strength bid or two). But in the long
run it ensures that Ultimate remains on good terms with field site
owners/managers and that the sport isn't seen as that sport that has
no respect for fields or rules, resulting in it being hard for
organizers to obtain fields.

I should also say, overall I like that Mike G is pushing observer
forward. I believe that active travel calls make sense. I like
observers who work to get in position. I am a huge advocate of clear,
standardized hand signals. But that doesn't excuse him or Jason from
making bad judgments in other areas. It doesn't matter how good the
observers are if no one can play Ultimate on the fields.

I should also add that I had nothing to do with this decision. I am
no longer on the Board or staff (although I'm still a State Youth
Coordinator). I think the UPA is so bad at communication that players
are eager to jump on the anti-UPA bandwagon when stuff like this comes
up. But take a step back and you'll realize that this decision is the
right one for the sport in the long run.

-Kyle
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52793 is a reply to message #52781] Fri, 19 February 2010 17:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
> AND, in leiu of the tremendous contributions mike and jason were
> making to the advancement of the observer system, to the detriment of
> the sport itself as well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--"were" making?

so that everyone is clear....we are going to KEEP making advancements.
we are going to continue doing what we do.....
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52795 is a reply to message #52791] Fri, 19 February 2010 17:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
> Seriously...everyone needs to take a step back and think about why
> this is a good decision for the sport.  If tournaments ruin fields
> resulting in thousands of dollars worth of resodding

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

---resodding??????

i don't think it's going to come to that.....
and.....mud events are pretty rare for the most part, thank goodness.
ya need one every once and a while......
and it doesn't seem like a national ruling body to punish us for what
happens in our own home....
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52796 is a reply to message #52791] Fri, 19 February 2010 17:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
 I think the UPA is so bad at communication that players
> are eager to jump on the anti-UPA bandwagon when stuff like this comes
> up.  But take a step back and you'll realize that this decision is the
> right one for the sport in the long run.
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--what they communicate ain't too good either.
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52882 is a reply to message #52791] Sat, 20 February 2010 15:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
josh[1]
Messages: 71
Registered: October 2009
Member
On Feb 19, 6:50 pm, Kyle Weisbrod <kyle.weisb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, how awful is that!  Tournament directors are going to start
> making decisions with the results of those decisions in mind!  And
> they will stop tournaments when the fields are being damaged.  It's
> going to be terrible.
>
> Seriously...everyone needs to take a step back and think about why
> this is a good decision for the sport.  If tournaments ruin fields
> resulting in thousands of dollars worth of resodding while people who
> use those fields aren't allowed to use them and the field owners stop
> allowing tournaments and local leagues to use those fields that is bad
> for all of us.  I can't believe how many people here are acting like
> the UPA is out of line on this decision.  Yes, the decision*may*
> affect a small number of team's eligibility for the UPA rankings
> (which may or may not affect a strength bid or two).  But in the long
> run it ensures that Ultimate remains on good terms with field site
> owners/managers and that the sport isn't seen as that sport that has
> no respect for fields or rules, resulting in it being hard for
> organizers to obtain fields.
>
> I should also say, overall I like that Mike G is pushing observer
> forward.  I believe that active travel calls make sense.  I like
> observers who work to get in position.  I am a huge advocate of clear,
> standardized hand signals.  But that doesn't excuse him or Jason from
> making bad judgments in other areas.  It doesn't matter how good the
> observers are if no one can play Ultimate on the fields.
>
> I should also add that I had nothing to do with this decision.  I am
> no longer on the Board or staff (although I'm still a State Youth
> Coordinator).  I think the UPA is so bad at communication that players
> are eager to jump on the anti-UPA bandwagon when stuff like this comes
> up.  But take a step back and you'll realize that this decision is the
> right one for the sport in the long run.
>
> -Kyle

Oh, so there was some evidence that Gerics & Weddle had been told
either not to play on the fields or exactly how wet was too wet by the
county park? I mean, the UPA wouldn't punish someone who did
something that wasn't proven to have been a blatant disregard, right?
Even if his surname is Gerics? They got reasonable evidence that
rules had been knowingly ignored/broken, right? Whew! Or are you
making an ass out of you & them?
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52887 is a reply to message #52882] Sat, 20 February 2010 18:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kyle Weisbrod
Messages: 195
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Feb 20, 6:44 pm, josh murphy <joshmur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 6:50 pm, Kyle Weisbrod <kyle.weisb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yeah, how awful is that!  Tournament directors are going to start
> > making decisions with the results of those decisions in mind!  And
> > they will stop tournaments when the fields are being damaged.  It's
> > going to be terrible.
>
> > Seriously...everyone needs to take a step back and think about why
> > this is a good decision for the sport.  If tournaments ruin fields
> > resulting in thousands of dollars worth of resodding while people who
> > use those fields aren't allowed to use them and the field owners stop
> > allowing tournaments and local leagues to use those fields that is bad
> > for all of us.  I can't believe how many people here are acting like
> > the UPA is out of line on this decision.  Yes, the decision*may*
> > affect a small number of team's eligibility for the UPA rankings
> > (which may or may not affect a strength bid or two).  But in the long
> > run it ensures that Ultimate remains on good terms with field site
> > owners/managers and that the sport isn't seen as that sport that has
> > no respect for fields or rules, resulting in it being hard for
> > organizers to obtain fields.
>
> > I should also say, overall I like that Mike G is pushing observer
> > forward.  I believe that active travel calls make sense.  I like
> > observers who work to get in position.  I am a huge advocate of clear,
> > standardized hand signals.  But that doesn't excuse him or Jason from
> > making bad judgments in other areas.  It doesn't matter how good the
> > observers are if no one can play Ultimate on the fields.
>
> > I should also add that I had nothing to do with this decision.  I am
> > no longer on the Board or staff (although I'm still a State Youth
> > Coordinator).  I think the UPA is so bad at communication that players
> > are eager to jump on the anti-UPA bandwagon when stuff like this comes
> > up.  But take a step back and you'll realize that this decision is the
> > right one for the sport in the long run.
>
> > -Kyle
>
> Oh, so there was some evidence that Gerics & Weddle had been told
> either not to play on the fields or exactly how wet was too wet by the
> county park?  I mean, the UPA wouldn't punish someone who did
> something that wasn't proven to have been a blatant disregard, right?
> Even if his surname is Gerics?  They got reasonable evidence that
> rules had been knowingly ignored/broken, right?  Whew!  Or are you
> making an ass out of you & them?

Really? Do you need someone to tell you when you are likely going to
cause significant damage to a field due to it's condition?

It is simply reasonable to expect that when one is responsible for
running an event they are responsible for taking care to ensure that
the conditions are such that you can play without damaging the field.
Looking at the pictures from the event it is pretty clear that Mike
and Jason were negligent in that regard.

I coach an Ultimate team here in Atlanta. There are times when we go
out to practice and I have to make the call that the fields are too
wet to play on lest we get in trouble with the school or city of
Atlanta who rents us the fields. I also sometimes captain league
teams and have had to make that call when there are no league
organizers at the field sites.

I know when we go to a game or tournament we just want to play, but
sometimes we need to be responsible so that we and others can play in
the future.
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52890 is a reply to message #52882] Sat, 20 February 2010 18:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
colinmcintyre
Messages: 1256
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Feb 20, 6:44 pm, josh murphy <joshmur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 6:50 pm, Kyle Weisbrod <kyle.weisb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yeah, how awful is that!  Tournament directors are going to start
> > making decisions with the results of those decisions in mind!  And
> > they will stop tournaments when the fields are being damaged.  It's
> > going to be terrible.
>
> > Seriously...everyone needs to take a step back and think about why
> > this is a good decision for the sport.  If tournaments ruin fields
> > resulting in thousands of dollars worth of resodding while people who
> > use those fields aren't allowed to use them and the field owners stop
> > allowing tournaments and local leagues to use those fields that is bad
> > for all of us.  I can't believe how many people here are acting like
> > the UPA is out of line on this decision.  Yes, the decision*may*
> > affect a small number of team's eligibility for the UPA rankings
> > (which may or may not affect a strength bid or two).  But in the long
> > run it ensures that Ultimate remains on good terms with field site
> > owners/managers and that the sport isn't seen as that sport that has
> > no respect for fields or rules, resulting in it being hard for
> > organizers to obtain fields.
>
> > I should also say, overall I like that Mike G is pushing observer
> > forward.  I believe that active travel calls make sense.  I like
> > observers who work to get in position.  I am a huge advocate of clear,
> > standardized hand signals.  But that doesn't excuse him or Jason from
> > making bad judgments in other areas.  It doesn't matter how good the
> > observers are if no one can play Ultimate on the fields.
>
> > I should also add that I had nothing to do with this decision.  I am
> > no longer on the Board or staff (although I'm still a State Youth
> > Coordinator).  I think the UPA is so bad at communication that players
> > are eager to jump on the anti-UPA bandwagon when stuff like this comes
> > up.  But take a step back and you'll realize that this decision is the
> > right one for the sport in the long run.
>
> > -Kyle
>
> Oh, so there was some evidence that Gerics & Weddle had been told
> either not to play on the fields or exactly how wet was too wet by the
> county park?  I mean, the UPA wouldn't punish someone who did
> something that wasn't proven to have been a blatant disregard, right?
> Even if his surname is Gerics?  They got reasonable evidence that
> rules had been knowingly ignored/broken, right?  Whew!  Or are you
> making an ass out of you & them?

I've never heard of a rental agreement that didn't involve an
agreement by the renter not to destroy or seriously damage the rented
property. I'm not sure you're taking a defensible position here. But
if you want one, I've got one. Check out my upcoming post.
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52895 is a reply to message #52887] Sat, 20 February 2010 20:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
moremailforscott
Messages: 115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
On Feb 20, 6:15 pm, Kyle Weisbrod <kyle.weisb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It is simply reasonable to expect that when one is responsible for
> running an event they are responsible for taking care to ensure that
> the conditions are such that you can play without damaging the field.

is it really reasonable to expect t.d.'s who are clearly biased toward
keeping their own tournament running to accept this level of
responsibility? sure some may do so, even if it isn't to their own
advantage, but isn't it a bit unrealistic to expect every t.d. to be
able to do this? and why should they?

I'm not sure we need to have completely impartial decision makers
responsible for this sort of a decision (though perhaps we should),
but at the very least there should be an impartial party available to
make the call if, after a brief period of time, the organizers are
unable to confidently reach a decision on their own regarding the
conditions and risks of continuing to play.

The decision itself should be communicated in a manner readily
identifiable for those standing at a distance waiting to hear whether
or not the tourney will proceed. only two recognizable signals are
necessary. one, hand held high in the air with index finger pointing
skyward, with wrist rotating three times in circular motion = games
are on; second, fist with thumb pointing backward held head high and
level to the ear, with three short jerks over the shoulder = yer outta
here, games are off.
Re: Sanctioning Revoked for UOA Tournament for this weekend (2/20) [message #52898 is a reply to message #52895] Sat, 20 February 2010 22:59 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
jegi
Messages: 105
Registered: November 2008
Senior Member
How often has there been 4-5 inches of snow in Wilmington, NC? Ever?

Perhaps neither the organizers, nor the Country field owners, had ever
dealt with accumulated snow and freezing temperatures during an event.
Rain, even heavy, sustained rain will drain on well-maintained fields
(if properly aerated). Snow, on the other hand, will not drain if the
ground is frozen, or near-frozen. This is what causes the mudbowl
effect.

Should organizers in the South be punished for not knowing what we
know in the North? I think not.

Also, we should move the UPA Headquarters back to the Northeast (were
most of the players are located). Whoever made the decision to punish
northern college teams and players (for their weather), should be
relieved of their duties immediately. Who was that?

J.Invencio
Previous Topic:Mardi Gras Women's Results?
Next Topic:2010 UPA Carolina College Open Sectionals
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sat Mar 23 00:12:21 PDT 2019
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

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