Tuesday, October 23, 2007

To DQ or not to DQ

That is the question.
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?

I dunno. It's easy to predict the UPA's decision.

It definitely sucks for the two players who won't be playing. Originally I felt worse for the captain who got dragged down, but it was probably more her fault than the omitted player, who really would never have any reason to suspect that her name wasn't on the roster.

On the other hand, the other 59 teams at Nationals presumably got it right. I spent countless hours checking and double-checking, herding the cats to see who was actually in or not and nagging them to sign up and send in their waiver and enter their birthdate and everything else. Not that I would have done anything with that time, but I'd like to have it back.

I definitely see that the UPA can't let this go with just a shrug. When they first started getting serious about requiring everyone to be a member before playing in the series, membership (and membership dues) increased by more than 10% that year after several years of close to zero growth. They have probably already spent many hours they don't have right now to deal with this when they should be preparing a tournament for the 1500 other players.

But then why does it have to be disqualification? Again, I see the UPA's view, and I can't imagine that any other sports organization would even be having this discussion. If you're not on the roster, you don't play, period. Use someone who is not on the roster, you're DQ'ed and face possible extra sanctions. Simple, right?

But still, it seems harsh, especially because this may be those two's only visit to Nationals. (Then again, players sometimes get hurt the week before or the first game of Nationals and don't play.) They could still be severely punished so that no one would want to be in that situation but still be allowed to play. For instance, have to do 40 hours of community service before being allowed to play in another UPA event. Pay "court costs", a fine to cover the UPA's time on this. Pick up trash every day. Massage Will Deaver's feet at the end of each day after fetching him a couple beers (well, maybe they would prefer to remain DQ'ed to this).

Then again, the UPA doesn't want to nor should have to listen to every sob story (and there would be a lot more if they backtracked), and soon it might become impossible to DQ those who really deserve it. "No tolerance" might be the greater good, all things considered.

So, not much new here. Not a plea to the UPA to reconsider, at least not today. I wrote a couple things to rsd this week that might be construed I think that the whole team deserves to be kicked out; I don't, I just didn't expect anything different from the UPA. This is not your father's UPA, for better and for worse.

Good luck to everyone.


Ca$h said...

I think, based on UPA's history...glaring example being UCSB...that the team should have been disqualified. If I was UCSB, or any other team that has been disqualified due to using ineligible players...I would be livid.

She was ineligible as she was not on the roster and played at sectionals and regionals.

Do I necessarily think this would be the best result, not sure, but based upon precedent, it should be the right result.


parinella said...

There are levels of ineligibility and cheating, though. This girl was ineligible because someone just left her off the roster.

There was no way under any circumstance the UCSB guy was eligible, or the Minnesota woman.

NCSt was a better analogy.

Dave said...

I also think it's important to note that we're seeing some selective enforcement here. If the UPA was really that concerned with non-roster players contributing to teams' results, how come they don't check names & IDs at Sectionals & Regionals? There could be other teams who used non-roster players to get to Nationals, we just don't know about them.

These women are being punished for coming forward and admitting an honest mistake. While I can understand taking the non-roster player out of the tournament, DQing the captain seems not only overly harsh, but not actually within the rules (which seem to say they can ban the player in question or the team as a whole, at their discretion, but makes no mention of other penalties).

My two cents,

parinella said...

I don't think they "came forward" so much as they submitted their roster to Nationals and the UPA noticed someone wasn't on their real roster.

Really, as a captain myself, I have no idea how the Ambush captain could have screwed this up other than through treating the process lightly. The captain is wholly responsible for the roster, so DQ'ing her for the violation seems appropriate, if you're going to DQ anyone. Also, the player probably wasn't technically DQ'ed since she was never officially on the team.

It is selective, though. But if you're going to be selective, it should be for the championships, I guess. I guess one of the standing interpretations of "SOTG" is that if it doesn't make a difference, it's not as bad to violate some rule. For instance, I don't care if someone is offsides because they're just being lazy, but if they do it in order to get down faster to thwart a called play (and they're doing it intentionally), then I don't like it.

Finally, kudos to Matty J and Getty for speaking out on behalf of old-time ultimate. Even if you disagree with them, they stated a case well and didn't come off as hyperbolic like most.

david said...

You didn't find "COWARDS", "shatter the dreams", "bureacratic bunglers", and "heartless bureaucratic machine" hyperbolic?!?
The comments on old time ultimate are informative, but I thought Matt J's rhetoric way over the top. Reminds me of the ridiculous overreaction to foul calls you'll get against certain players on the field.

degs said...

Re: selective enforcement -- the rules are enforced as uniformly as possible. IDs aren't checked at Sectionals because it's a pain in the ass (and if they were to start that I'd start with the College Series). Both Jim & I are guessing that Ambush goofed by including this non-rostered player on their Nationals roster and that's what drew the UPA's attention.

What's funny here is that if this error was caught in between Sectionals and Regionals I don't think it would have had this kind of outcry (Ambush simply would not have been able to play at Regionals). DQ'ing Nationals-bound players/teams seem harsh, but it is no more harsh than DQ'ing them after Sectionals... which should have happened anyway (apparently).

maplerowfarm said...

r.e., selective enforcement of rules.

boulder player spikes the disc on an opponents chest and is not penalized during the game or even suspended post-game/tournament. Observer and UPA used discretion here.

sockeye player can't find his uniform and is allowed to share a uni/number with various teammates the entire game, changing midpoint in some instances. UPA used discretion to allow this despite the obvious rule that two players cannot wear the same number.

both instances rules were broken, one more aggregious than the other and the uniform example probably closest example to the "roster" brainfart. discretion was used to let the players continue to play in both instances but not these two women.

My rhetoric was WAY over the top but I was desperate to influence the decision and stand by my opinion that this was not a good decision for the sport. My feeling is that it is more dangerous to set the precedent of not using discretion than it is to set the precedent of using it on a case by case basis. You box yourself into a corner when you will really want to use discretion in the future.

anyway, seems to have died down for now. wish I could have made natties but my wife is preggers and got sick (on purpose I'm sure of it!)
congrats boys good to see the NE win it.

Matty J

parinella said...

Boulder player is still subject to penalty if someone files a complaint (and follows up with statements, witnesses, etc.) with the Conduct Committee. I saw the spike out of the corner of my eye from 60 yards away. I'm surprised that no card was given, although it also looked like a dangerous play by the defender to begin with.

The UPA definitely needed to assess some significant penalty (money or community service) on Ambush or else they would open the floodgates for sob stories next year and beyond, plus they would probably have more "scammers" who played with teams but didn't join. What kind of non-DQ penalty could you live with?