LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

Cameron Archibald of BYU was denied another year of eligibility even though he only played in half his teams games last year. He will be in school so why not just let him play? This is club lacrosse for crying out loud. Look at what's best for the kid, not what you think will give the league more legitimacy. No matter what you do, it's still club lacrosse. Don't try to make it more important than it actually is

smootharch wrote:Cameron Archibald of BYU was denied another year of eligibility even though he only played in half his teams games last year. He will be in school so why not just let him play? This is club lacrosse for crying out loud. Look at what's best for the kid, not what you think will give the league more legitimacy. No matter what you do, it's still club lacrosse. Don't try to make it more important than it actually is

I assume last season was his fourth. According to the eligibility rules, if you are on the team's active online roster when your team plays a game, regardless of whether or not you actually play in the game, you use a year of eligibility. Considering he played in half of the games, he definitely would have used up a year.

Sorry I didn't clarify. He tore his ACL, that's why he didn't play. He wasn't on the active roster.

smootharch wrote:Cameron Archibald of BYU was denied another year of eligibility even though he only played in half his teams games last year. He will be in school so why not just let him play? This is club lacrosse for crying out loud. Look at what's best for the kid, not what you think will give the league more legitimacy. No matter what you do, it's still club lacrosse. Don't try to make it more important than it actually is

Yes, it's a club sport. Does that mean there should be no rules of any kind? Heck, why don't we let former DI players sign up for 1 credit and play MDIA ball?

When your team joins the MDIA, you agree to abide by certain rules. If you don't like those rules and want anyone to be able to play, you can certainly have a lacrosse club without belonging to MDIA.

To me, your argument is no different than the people who say "Why do we need matching helmets?" Answer: because that's what you agreed to when you joined MDIA and agreed to play under NCAA rules.

I can see your point, although the comparison to the teams wearing the same helmets is ridiculous. You need to look at each case individually and see what's best for the person. This isn't a D1 player asking to play. This is a guy who played three years for this same team and in his last year, he tore his knee. I don't see how not letting him play this year to finish his eligibility is helping the kid. If this was a D1 sport, I could see an argument. But come on, let's remember what we're talking about here.

Complaining about individual eligibility cases here isn't really productive. No one on the Board of Directors or the Executive Board will publicly discuss any decisions they make, nor should they for obvious privacy reasons.

I'd be willing to bet there are a number of similar cases in the past that were denied and the board followed existing precident.

"Board of Directors" and "Executive Board"? I am trying hard not to laugh right now. I mean, this is exactly what I'm talking about. This is a joke.

Well, this "league" doesn't seem to be a "joke" to Cameron if you are publicly campaigning for him on a message board to have another year of eligibility.

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.

smootharch wrote:I can see your point, although the comparison to the teams wearing the same helmets is ridiculous.

Why? It's a rule that the league enforces. It might be in the "best interest" of a player to not buy a new helmet to match his teammates' helmets because he can't afford it and won't be able to play if he has to buy a new one. But the league has its rules, and you agree to those rules.

smootharch wrote:"Board of Directors" and "Executive Board"? I am trying hard not to laugh right now. I mean, this is exactly what I'm talking about. This is a joke.

I think it's a joke that you voluntarily decided to play in an organized league and then mock it for being an organized league. Go join a club league with little or no structure if this bugs you so much.

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.

Per NCAA guidelines, there is no such thing as a medical redshirt. There is a medical hardship waiver which may be granted to restore one additional year of eligibility.

As best I can tell, the injury must occur within the first 50% of the season and the played must have played in less than 20% of the games.

Cam was injured vs. FSU in the 6th game of a 12 game MDIA schedule, qualifiying him by the first standard, but he had played in every game up to that point, well above the 20% number.

Granted, these are NCAA numbers, but if the MDIA guidelines are anywhere near, there was very little chance of Cam getting the year back. It's disappointing, but the structure is in place.

I assume Chucky got his year back as his injury occured much earlier.

Board of Directors" and "Executive Board"? I am trying hard not to laugh right now. I mean, this is exactly what I'm talking about. This is a joke.

If you hate this league so much, why do you spend so much time on the message boards? It seems to me that you are the joke.