|
Post by n00b on Oct 29, 2014 21:21:05 GMT -5
The number of players isn't the question, it's whether sand volleyball is a separate sport from indoor volleyball. Volleyball players could play in an outside soccer league if they wanted to. If sand volleyball is a separate sport from indoor volleyball, the number of players is irrelevant. THAT is why the interpretation matters and it is not spelled out in the rule book (at least from what is posted here). I believe the interpretation is that more than half the team participating in any sport would be considered as the same sport and prohibited, so it is specifically the number that matters. Nope... 600. COMPETITION ON AN OUTSIDE TEAM
A student on a high school team becomes ineligible if the student competes in a contest on an “outside” team, in the same sport, during the student’s high school season of sport (See Bylaw 504.A). (Emphasis added) Link: www.cifns.org/Forms/CIF%20Constitution.pdf
|
|
|
Post by John Tawa-VolleyballMag.com on Oct 29, 2014 21:27:06 GMT -5
Both numbers and the nature of the sport are relevant.
More important, the person charged with enforcing the bylaw rendered an opinion, then let the event happen with kids relying on that opinion, then, AFTER THE FACT, the SAME PERSON reversed and punished.
Even if the Bylaws were deemed to apply to participation in beach volleyball, once the interpretation is rendered without being withdrawn, folks ought to be able to rely on it. If any parent or player thought playing in a coed, costume wearing unreffed event would entail risk, there is no way anyone would have done it. CIF created the issue that resulted directly in suspensions and forfeitures. That's not right. They should own their mistake.
|
|
|
Post by leftcoastlefty on Oct 29, 2014 21:50:19 GMT -5
CIF deserves serious hatin' on many of its decisions. Some schools, coaches and families play by the rules and are punished or live with the appropriate consequences. Others use "creative truth" (i.e., do what they want) to comply with the rules after the fact. This was a combination of both. CIF, by virtue of being unwilling to enter into continued dialogue on the issue, is telling parents to "deal with it." No different from any POTUS telling U.S. citizens that she doesn't answer to them because she was elected by the Electoral College.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Oct 29, 2014 21:51:51 GMT -5
I believe the interpretation is that more than half the team participating in any sport would be considered as the same sport and prohibited, so it is specifically the number that matters. Nope... 600. COMPETITION ON AN OUTSIDE TEAM
A student on a high school team becomes ineligible if the student competes in a contest on an “outside” team, in the same sport, during the student’s high school season of sport (See Bylaw 504.A). (Emphasis added) Link: www.cifns.org/Forms/CIF%20Constitution.pdfYou didn't read the next rule,600.A, which is the same mistake that was made originally.
|
|
|
Post by Cubicle No More ... on Oct 29, 2014 21:58:23 GMT -5
well, the only thing that's clear is that there's disagreement and ambiguity here -- after the fact -- on the interpretation of the rule(s) and which rule(s) even applied.
plus it couldn't have been all that clear, if many parents sought a "ruling" from the CIF out of an abundance of caution prior to the event.
the CIF could have "grandfathered" those students in under the earlier interpretation of the rule, and declined to penalize them ... while also issuing a new directive saying that the rule would be interpreted in this alternate way going forward. that would have been the reasonable/measured approach, imo.
|
|
|
Post by downtheline on Oct 29, 2014 22:00:27 GMT -5
CIF is living in yesterday's world.
They should be embracing beach volleyball.
Many indoor players have participated in this tournament over the years.
The tough lesson is not having a clearance or memo of understanding in writing before participating. I would not trust any governing bodies verbal clearing of eligibility.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Oct 29, 2014 22:05:35 GMT -5
Both numbers and the nature of the sport are relevant. More important, the person charged with enforcing the bylaw rendered an opinion, then let the event happen with kids relying on that opinion, then, AFTER THE FACT, the SAME PERSON reversed and punished. Even if the Bylaws were deemed to apply to participation in beach volleyball, once the interpretation is rendered without being withdrawn, folks ought to be able to rely on it. If any parent or player thought playing in a coed, costume wearing unreffed event would entail risk, there is no way anyone would have done it. CIF created the issue that resulted directly in suspensions and forfeitures. That's not right. They should own their mistake. You're an attorney, for goodness sake. It's not a question of whether the rule applies to sand volleyball. 600.A says that half or more of the outside team (of whatever sport is being played, in this case, sand volleyball) cannot be comprised of players from the team subject to the rule (in this case, indoor volleyball). So, one of the high school players could have played on each four person sand team, but two of them comprise half of the "outside" team, and therefore, two on that team is prohibited. Two, however, could participate on a 6 person team, and so on. Let me say, I don't work for the CIF, I never have (and never will), but I do have a lot of experience with NCAA compliance, and I have also known Terese for a long, long time. I really feel for her. I have no doubt she believed she had done her due diligence, and have no reason to believe the parents didn't either, but the language of the rule seems very clear.
|
|
|
Post by Ralph Kramden on Oct 29, 2014 22:25:38 GMT -5
There is some serious hatin goin on by some people....................... Huh?
|
|
|
Post by bayarea on Oct 29, 2014 22:31:14 GMT -5
Every year, the CBVA Cal Cup Championship is held in Manhattan Beach in early September. Virtually all the 18U, 16U and possibly 14U contestants, winners of CBVA Tour Stop events held during the summer, are also indoor high school volleyball players, almost exclusively in California (CIF). I am not aware that any sanctions have ever been handed down from the CIF, presumably because there has only been one participant per school team? My understanding of this conflict has always been that indoor 6-man volleyball is considered a separate sport than beach volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by pogoball on Oct 29, 2014 22:48:56 GMT -5
Nope... 600. COMPETITION ON AN OUTSIDE TEAM
A student on a high school team becomes ineligible if the student competes in a contest on an “outside” team, in the same sport, during the student’s high school season of sport (See Bylaw 504.A). (Emphasis added) Link: www.cifns.org/Forms/CIF%20Constitution.pdfYou didn't read the next rule,600.A, which is the same mistake that was made originally. I have no horse in this race. I disagree with your interpretation of 600A, the exact wording is: It still comes down to whether sand volleyball is considered the same sport as indoor volleyball. In other words, if the volleyball players got together to play as a team in a basketball tournament, they would not have been ineligible. In fact, the next rule addendum, 600B, specifically states that flag football is a different sport than tackle football. The fact that they do not address sand or beach volleyball in the rulebook at all implies that they have not formed an opinion on whether the sports are the same or not. If the tournament had been an indoor 4s tournament, that would be a violation. It was not indoor 4s, though, it was sand 4s which is about as close to indoor 6s as flag football is to tackle.
|
|
|
Post by John Tawa-VolleyballMag.com on Oct 29, 2014 22:56:53 GMT -5
Both numbers and the nature of the sport are relevant. More important, the person charged with enforcing the bylaw rendered an opinion, then let the event happen with kids relying on that opinion, then, AFTER THE FACT, the SAME PERSON reversed and punished. Even if the Bylaws were deemed to apply to participation in beach volleyball, once the interpretation is rendered without being withdrawn, folks ought to be able to rely on it. If any parent or player thought playing in a coed, costume wearing unreffed event would entail risk, there is no way anyone would have done it. CIF created the issue that resulted directly in suspensions and forfeitures. That's not right. They should own their mistake. You're an attorney, for goodness sake. It's not a question of whether the rule applies to sand volleyball. 600.A says that half or more of the outside team (of whatever sport is being played, in this case, sand volleyball) cannot be comprised of players from the team subject to the rule (in this case, indoor volleyball). So, one of the high school players could have played on each four person sand team, but two of them comprise half of the "outside" team, and therefore, two on that team is prohibited. Two, however, could participate on a 6 person team, and so on. Let me say, I don't work for the CIF, I never have (and never will), but I do have a lot of experience with NCAA compliance, and I have also known Terese for a long, long time. I really feel for her. I have no doubt she believed she had done her due diligence, and have no reason to believe the parents didn't either, but the language of the rule seems very clear. You are misreading the rule, as I did initially. Because there are 6 players on a volleyball court at one time, two on two vball is allowable, 3 on 3 or higher is not, because it constitutes more than half. The rule does not speak to the actual identities of those players. Last weekend, you had a girl from one school, a girl from another, a guys from different schools still, playing on the beach, in costume. They were not practicing as a team and derived much less benefit than had any player gone to her club for a private workout, which is permissible.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Oct 29, 2014 23:00:30 GMT -5
You didn't read the next rule,600.A, which is the same mistake that was made originally. I have no horse in this race. I disagree with your interpretation of 600A, the exact wording is: It still comes down to whether sand volleyball is considered the same sport as indoor volleyball. In other words, if the volleyball players got together to play as a team in a basketball tournament, they would not have been ineligible. In fact, the next rule addendum, 600B, specifically states that flag football is a different sport than tackle football. The fact that they do not address sand or beach volleyball in the rulebook at all implies that they have not formed an opinion on whether the sports are the same or not. If the tournament had been an indoor 4s tournament, that would be a violation. It was not indoor 4s, though, it was sand 4s which is about as close to indoor 6s as flag football is to tackle. The phrase you highlighted "for that sport" is referring to the rule book that contains the definition (i.e. composition of the team. So, in other words, if the basketball rule book defines a team as five positions (or starters), then two or fewer is allowed, but three or more is prohibited. If baseball is defined as 9 in the rule book, then four or fewer is allowed, but five or more is prohibited. Basically, players from the same high school team can play any other sport, they just cannot comprise half or more of the basic team unit of that other sport.
|
|
|
Post by John Tawa-VolleyballMag.com on Oct 29, 2014 23:16:11 GMT -5
pogoball is right that an issue exists whether volleyball and beach volleyball are separate sports. If so, 600.A would apply only to non-beach volleyball activities.
This may seem absurd to you volleyguy but soccer and indoor soccer are not considered the same sport (600.C) and the CIF State office has had these very discussions.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Oct 29, 2014 23:16:26 GMT -5
You're an attorney, for goodness sake. It's not a question of whether the rule applies to sand volleyball. 600.A says that half or more of the outside team (of whatever sport is being played, in this case, sand volleyball) cannot be comprised of players from the team subject to the rule (in this case, indoor volleyball). So, one of the high school players could have played on each four person sand team, but two of them comprise half of the "outside" team, and therefore, two on that team is prohibited. Two, however, could participate on a 6 person team, and so on. Let me say, I don't work for the CIF, I never have (and never will), but I do have a lot of experience with NCAA compliance, and I have also known Terese for a long, long time. I really feel for her. I have no doubt she believed she had done her due diligence, and have no reason to believe the parents didn't either, but the language of the rule seems very clear. You are misreading the rule, as I did initially. Because there are 6 players on a volleyball court at one time, two on two vball is allowable, 3 on 3 or higher is not, because it constitutes more than half. The rule does not speak to the actual identities of those players. Last weekend, you had a girl from one school, a girl from another, a guys from different schools still, playing on the beach, in costume. They were not practicing as a team and derived much less benefit than had any player gone to her club for a private workout, which is permissible. If I understand you correctly, the interpretation is that the limit is determined by the composition of the ORIGINAL team ( in this case indoor volleyball, which is 6, and therefore no more than three participants regardless if they are on the same original team). I agree that particular interpretation is difficult to arrive at based on the language of the rule, and I apologize for not understanding that was what you were saying all along.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Oct 29, 2014 23:23:41 GMT -5
pogoball is right that an issue exists whether volleyball and beach volleyball are separate sports. If so, 600.A would apply only to non-beach volleyball activities. This may seem absurd to you volleyguy but soccer and indoor soccer are not considered the same sport (600.C) and the CIF State office has had these very discussions. I think the issue there is what it means if a specific rule to define or categorize a sport as different is passed for one sport, but not another. In other words, what an affirmative action implies. Absent a specific rule, one can't assume that a distinction exists between sand and indoor vb, even though it's logical. If that were the case, there wouldn't have been a need for the soccer or football clarification.
|
|