Missouri State vs. Missouri

[RGDickerson]

The following post are my thoughts and opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of the Missouri State Lacrosse team.

In the 2007 Mens Lacrosse Rule Book it states, "When a team does not appear (e.g., due to weather, accidents, breakdown of vehicles, illness or catastrophic causes), a forfeit is not recorded. An institution shall not, for statistical purposes, declare a forfeit for a nonfulfillment of a contract. Such instantces shall be considered a "no contest.""

That is what has happened to the Missouri State vs. Missouri game, which was originally scheduled for April 10th at 7 p.m. We were notified by Mizzou that they could not provide a field with lights for that night. We then provided days in which we could come up there for a make up game and it was decided that the date would be April 26th at 5:30. On April 26the at 1:30, we received yet ANOTHER call from Mizzou stating they could not, yet again, provide a field for us to play on (keep in mind this is two days before playoffs are set to begin).

This call came AFTER we were told by the GRLC executive board that "failure by either of the teams to make this game will have immediate consequences as determined by the board."

Mizzou failed to have a field, and what "immediate consequences" did they receive you may ask? A ruling of "no contest" and the #3 seed in the GRLC Tournament.

Mizzou, the hosts of the game, had plenty of time to check weather reports, look at intramural game schedules, and MAKE SURE that they had a place for us to play. It was NOT because of "weather, accidents, breakdown of vehicles, illness or catastrophic causes" as stated in the rulebook. Mizzou violated the game contract signed and the ruling remains a no contest, thus rewarding Mizzou with the #3 seed. Would this technically fall under the no-contest rule or should this be classified as a forfeit?

Will someone on this forum please tell me where Missouri State is at fault on this? The bottom line is that Missouri State was told directly by the Mizzou coach "not to come." And now, they get the #3 seed.

Basically, the executive board is rewarding a team for not making adequate preparations. This kind of decision making makes the conference take a huge step backwards and makes me question the leagues judgement and leadership.

Grant Dickerson
Missouri State Lacrosse
#26, Attack

[bste_lax]

I am just going to throw out a preemptive "be careful what you say" on these forums/boards to future posters who decide to join in on this thread. This is a touchy subject that should probably be best discussed through other channels (notifying those on the GRLC Executive Board with your complaints).

I will leave this thread open for constructive thoughts, but just warning everyone now rather than later.

[James Foote]

This is definitely an interesting situation. The winner of the game in question would be awarded the #3 seed, loser the #4. I see how the conference put Mizzou in the #3 seed due to goal differential against conference opponents, however that seems like the 'easy' route. I tend to think that a game contract holds more weight than people give it credit for.

For those who know the league rules, and specifically the GRLC constitution better than I, what are the thoughts on how this matter should or should have been handled?

[bste_lax]

I am just going to lock this thread. If you have complaints, take it up with the right people (i.e. Executive Board). I understand this is a big deal for those teams involved but we don't need the "dirty laundry" of the conference being spread on the message board.