| Subject: Re: Amalgamated teams - interpreting the constitution |
Author:
TimC
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12:23:39 11/12/03 Wed
In reply to:
Ali
's message, "Amalgamated teams - interpreting the constitution" on 11:06:40 11/12/03 Wed
I have an old version (last year's) of the constitution saved on my computer. In it, 2.1.4.4 - 2.1.4.6 read:
2.1.4.4 Half of the dancers in each team (i.e. A, B, C and D) must be from the named Higher Education Establishment(s) except in the case of an amalgamation of small teams.
2.1.4.5 In the case where a small university can not enter a single team as an independent entry they may be allowed to amalgamate with other universities in a similar position to form a combined entry under the names of those Higher Educational Establishments involved. The entry would follow all rules pertaining to team entries (2.8.2 and 2.8.3) and a single team captain would be elected. This rule does not preclude any university from returning to independent status at any time throughout the year if able to do so.
2.1.4.6 No competitor may compete for more than one Member Society's team in any academic year, except in the case of amalgamated teams (2.1.4.5). Dancers are deemed to have competed for a particular team if they have taken part in any team match against other Member Society teams from the commencement of the academic year (including NUDC, SUDC, IVDC and any social events which include team matches).
In this old version ( which I believe was the one passed in 2000), there is explicit reference to small universities, the idea being that if Newcastle and Sunderland only have two couples each, they can opt to permanently combine the two teams to make a proper team. The reference to small teams seems to have been lost in the translation, and I think that is a mistake.
Incidentally, I agree that it is not IVDA's place to decide how smaller competitions run themselves, but what happens here does affect IVDA eligibility. If we decide that this will render those Cambridge dancers ineligible, then they are still welcome to compete as an amalgamated team at Warwick, but they should understand the consequences.
>Firstly it is not the role of IVDA to *dictate* to
>friendly competitions what rules they may or may not
>follow, though in this case the knock-on effects
>essentially do this.
>
>I might note that I submitted an up-to-date version of
>the constitution to the webmaster over two weeks ago,
>and it has still not yet been posted.
>
>Anyway, the key clause is:
>
>"2.8.1.6 No competitor may compete for more than one
>Member Society's team in any academic year, except in
>the case of amalgamated teams (2.8.1.5). Dancers are
>deemed to have competed for a particular team if they
>have taken part in any team match against other Member
>Society teams from the commencement of the academic
>year (including NUDC, SUDC, IVDC and any social events
>which include team matches). "
>
>which was renumbered as part of the new format, but
>has been in the const for a few years now (after
>Eddie's original pioneering amalgamation ideas). On
>further inspection it is badly-worded - it should say
>something like "if someone has danced for a
>non-amalgamated team at a comp during that year they
>may not dance for any other non-amalgamated team at
>IVDC", which was the intention of the clause. Indeed,
>the rule would be pointless if you couldn't amalgamate
>earlier in the year then dance seperately, because no
>entry in 2.8.1.6 would be needed.
>
>Based not only on the consititution as stands, but
>also on the fact that I was present at the meeting
>when amalgamation was first proposed (Spring 2000 I
>think!), it is my interpretation that amalgamated
>teams are permitted throughout the year.
>
>However: the scenarios outlined by Tim are not
>relevant, because any halfway-sensible organising ctte
>will impose the same (or similar) restrictions as IVDC
>now does (which were Tim's idea...)
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 