Archibald denied another year - Why??

[Gregg Pathiakis]

What is the rule for playing a part of a season and getting an injury. How many games can you play in and still have the opportunity for a medical redshirt? I think for varsity it's 3, but I'm not sure.

I believe the MDIA/MCLA rule is one game (on the active roster) = one year of eligibility.

[CATLAX MAN]

I seem to remember seeing on this site before that you use a year of eligibility if you are on the active roster (not a redshirt) for one game. I think CSU lost a year of eligibility for a few players because of this rule.

[LaxRef]

I am not campaigning for him right now. I am smart enough to know that this "Executive Board" would not change their mind. I just wanted to bring to light how ridiculous I think it is.

I've been involved with lifeguard races (running, swimming, paddleboarding, rowing, and surf-skiing, in various combinations, usually to simulate rescues) for many years. A large number of tournaments have "rules" consisting of one page with a vague description of each event, while the tournament that I was involved with running had rather substantial rulebooks that explained exactly what the rules were and what the penalties for violating the rules were.

The number of people complaining about getting screwed at our tournament was always lower because people knew what was expected. (Of course, all of the tournaments had their shares of complaints about the actual judging, but that's different.)

As an example, at one of these other tournaments, for the boat relay we were told that we had to bring our boat all the way onto dry sand before the next leg could start, but the team next to us did all of their exchanges in the water; when we protested, they said, "Well, it's not really written down that you have to touch the boat to dry sand, so we're going to let it go."

Why do I bring all of this up? Well, some people like the chaos of no rules. In some cases, that's because they want to try to take advantage of the lack of rules to help them win, and in some cases because they don't believe the extra level of fairness is worth the effort. But, in general, the more serious people are about what they do, the more structured they want the rules, because if you're going to invest that much effort into trying to win you don't want to get screwed out of a win because there's no organizational structure. The people who were really serious liked our tournament better.

This is not to say that they always agreed with every rule. On the contrary, there were sometimes bitter debates regarding rule changes because of differing opinions. However, the overall package was preferable to the complete chaos of other tournaments.

If you look at sports in general, the highest levels of sport (NFL, NCAA, Olympics) are highly structured, with clear (usually) rules. The MDIA is for teams that want to be serious.

This is what I see in your case: you have the belief that this person should get an extra year to play (in spite of the fact that the player would not get a "medical redshirt" under NCAA rules), and since this is contrary to the rules of the MDIA, you're mocking the whole MDIA structure. But the reason teams are associated with the MDIA is that, overall, they want that structure because it brings overall fairness even though occasionally some of those rules will hurt the team or individuals on the team.

Thus, I think it's really hypocritical to be a part of MDIA and then whine when a perfectly reasonable ruling doesn't go your way. OTOH, if your reaction was to start lobbying the executive board to adopt a clear, fair medical redshirt policy for the future, I'd be able to respect that.

[OAKS]

I seem to remember seeing on this site before that you use a year of eligibility if you are on the active roster (not a redshirt) for one game. I think CSU lost a year of eligibility for a few players because of this rule.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was when the rule was you could play 3 games before losing eligibility, and some of them accidentally played 4. The rule was changed later to 1 game because teams were playing their freshmen (ones that were planning to be in school for longer than 4 years) in the first 3 games of the season to get experience, and then have them sit out until the next season.

[Gregg Pathiakis]

I seem to remember seeing on this site before that you use a year of eligibility if you are on the active roster (not a redshirt) for one game. I think CSU lost a year of eligibility for a few players because of this rule.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was when the rule was you could play 3 games before losing eligibility, and some of them accidentally played 4. The rule was changed later to 1 game because teams were playing their freshmen (ones that were planning to be in school for longer than 4 years) in the first 3 games of the season to get experience, and then have them sit out until the next season.

I don't remember the reasoning behind the change, but you're right... it used to be three games and was changed a couple of years ago to one game.

Also, very good argument LaxRef

[laxdad03]

Please pardon my relative ignorance, but I have an informational question, perhaps separate from the rulings. I seem to remember hearing a while back (actually from a number of places) that Cam "had been granted" eligibility for next year, based on the injury situation, through exception or whatever. Does anyone know what the source of this was, on what it was based, and if it was somehow premature or otherwise in error? Thanks...

(P.S. I would certainly dearly love to see a very high quality player (and PERSON) such as Cam to be able to finish out his college lax career on a less disappointing note, I know the Cougs were looking forward to being able to have him back, and I think that his level of play would help make for a much better / more interesting season from an "art" point of view if nothing else. But I believe that due process, PROPERLY APPLIED, is crucial, regardless of which way the outcome goes -- that is to say, as much as I'd like to see him LEGITIMATELY able to play, in accordance with well-applied principles of fairness and the rules, and might hope for such an outcome to be possible, I'm NOT in favor of the "let him play, it's only club, it would be more fun" argument, as I think that such a result ON THAT BASIS would grossly damage our fond hopes of ever further elevating any level of legitimacy that the MDIA (sorry, I guess that should be MCLA now) may have.)

[Sonny]

I know the Cougs were looking forward to being able to have him back

Why would anyone with the Cougar program assume he would be able to play next year (after playing 7 games - half the schedule - this past year) with out an appeal being even filed?

[smootharch]

You're right, he was told that he would get that extra year back by the head of the executive board initially. Just goes to show how "official" this really is.

[laxdad03]

Just goes to show how "official" this really is.

Let's please just go for information (and perhaps even a little bit of CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, if warranted), and not try to demean what I think is a very positive organization and its ideals (and diminsh ourselves in the process).

[DanGenck]

You're right, he was told that he would get that extra year back by the head of the executive board initially. Just goes to show how "official" this really is.

Get lost, man.

[smootharch]

Yea dude, get lost man.

[westcoastlax]

smootarch,
That might be the most rediculous and worthless post in the history of this message board.

[smootharch]

I thought the one before it was worse.

[LaxRef]

You're right, he was told that he would get that extra year back by the head of the executive board initially. Just goes to show how "official" this really is.

Is there any evidence of this supposed conversation, or is this a case where someone said "We'll consider it through the proper channels and if everything is approved he'll get an extra year" got twisted into "He'll get an extra year"?

For the most part, people who are in the position of "head" of an executive board are usually pretty wise about not talking out of school; I'd be surprised if this were any different in the MDIA.

[smootharch]

Yes, Cameron heard personally that he was going to be able to play this year from the head of the committee. That's why he was so surprised to hear his appeal was denied.