Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Sanctions?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Mocktrocity View Post

    It is not a weird thing to do when you realize the ultimate position of Penn State is that the teams were co-equal, so they essentially believed they had 2 A teams, just as UVA the year before when they switched their A and B teams at Nationals and used the co-equal rationale. That is explained in the appeal extensively. To justify your conclusion that Penn State violated the regional assignments because of conflicting statements by students that were pulled out in the middle of competing over the objective evidence of results is weird. But hey, that is what the EC did in 2012.
    My goodness, dude, youíre like a broken record. You are being so disingenuous. The rule was that A goes one place and B goes another. PSU designated teams as A and B, then sent them to opposite regionals than they were assigned. They broke the rule. That is undisputed (not even disputed by Penn State in its appeal). I donít know who you are or why you care so much about a 6-plus year sanction, but dang man, move on. I feel sorry for you and I hope you find solace some day, along with the realization that this is JUST. MOCK. TRIAL. Youíre an alum (I think?), so please realize that your life is not defined by this activity and you donít need to die on this hill.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by lawlol View Post

      That is undisputed (not even disputed by Penn State in its appeal).
      You have not actually read the appeal if you think this was Penn State's position. That was not their position and it has already been brought up previously in this thread. But keep accusing others of being "disingenuous."

      Comment


      • #78
        PSU's appeal was essentially about egregiousness, which is why the debate AMTA had for multiple days with a flurry of over a hundred emails in that thread alone was whether to levy sanctions.

        Again, AMTA seems to have genuinely struggled with this case and clearly thought it justified changing some rules later, but I take issue with the idea that they didn't make a good faith, critical effort to decide the issue as consistent with the rules and policy behind the rules as possible. The evidence of that is simply not there.
        Last edited by Nur Rauch; January 18th, 2019, 12:41 AM.

        Comment


        • #79
          As interesting as the PSU debate is...can we please discuss these new sanctions? Losing a bid must be heartbreaking, does anyone know anything about the reasoning behind this extreme of a punishment? It seems to be the use of an ineligible competitor but the official season has yet to begin so the team may not have used the ineligible competitor in an AMTA sanctioned tournament. Regardless of the school involved, I think we should be investigating why this sanction occurred rather than a sanction from seven seasons ago as to discuss current issues with AMTA.
          Last edited by Covington2020; January 18th, 2019, 06:18 PM.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Covington2020 View Post
            As interesting as the PSU debate is...can we please discuss these new sanctions? Losing a bid must be heartbreaking, does anyone know anything about the reasoning behind this extreme of a punishment? It seems to be the use of an ineligible competitor but the official season has yet to begin so the team may not have used the ineligible competitor in an AMTA sanctioned tournament. Regardless of the school involved, I think we should be investigating why this sanction occurred rather than a sanction from seven seasons ago as to discuss current issues with AMTA.
            I'm as curious as anyone about why this happened, and I too have a lot of questions fro AMTA about how on earth their sanction process works these days. But you said it yourself. This has got to be an absolutely terrible time for whichever school was involved. Do we really want to dig into their business right now? If we learned anything from the 80 posts about the PSU thing isn't it that having the new sanctions aired and debated publicly may just create a longer lasting wound? If they want to talk about it or tell us what happened, by all means I'd be interested to hear it. If they think something was done wrong, I'd be happy to listen to their arguments. If AMTA wants to talk with us about how the process actually works (in the abstract), that would be great. But if AMTA won't tell us how things work, and the only way to discuss it is to scrutinize a team in this situation. I think we should let it be before we do more harm than good.

            Comment


            • #81
              My guess is that the ineligible competitor probably competed last year at a sanctioned tournament, and it is now being litigated. I could be totally wrong, itís just pure speculation.

              Comment


              • #82
                bdopl I think it's best not to speculate at all. I get the temptation, but that type of speculation starts rumors and can hurt the reputation of innocent teams. Best to just wait to see if anyone has actual, real info imo.

                Comment

                Working...
                X