Jump to content

Bridgemen 1977


Recommended Posts

The Bridgemen's defense was as follows:

     The overage member never marched a contest as a 22-year old. He would turn 22 while on tour and the Bridgemen had a spare with them on tour to take over the spot when the ageout turned 22. The problem was that DCI, at a rules congress had changed the eligibility rule. The rule in effect in 1977 said no 21-year old could march in any contest if he/she turned 22 at any time before the day of finals. The Bridgemen claimed not to aware of this rule change.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, traverbanking said:

The Bridgemen's defense was as follows:

     The overage member never marched a contest as a 22-year old. He would turn 22 while on tour and the Bridgemen had a spare with them on tour to take over the spot when the ageout turned 22. The problem was that DCI, at a rules congress had changed the eligibility rule. The rule in effect in 1977 said no 21-year old could march in any contest if he/she turned 22 at any time before the day of finals. The Bridgemen claimed not to aware of this rule change.

 

That's how I remember the rule. It affected me in '79. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

the cavaliers did the prelim stuff to the muchachos-in 75.i was the horn instructor in 75 and we got a tympani member from the east coast that year that came with names and addresses of overage members and gave the info to don warren. all he had to do was contact the state they were born in for birth certificate info.

the "haters" that cost the bridgemen to get tossed wasn't us.

it was phantom regiment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2020 at 2:02 PM, jeffdm61 said:

the cavaliers did the prelim stuff to the muchachos-in 75.i was the horn instructor in 75 and we got a tympani member from the east coast that year that came with names and addresses of overage members and gave the info to don warren. all he had to do was contact the state they were born in for birth certificate info.

the "haters" that cost the bridgemen to get tossed wasn't us.

it was phantom regiment

And you know this how?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because i had and still have friends in phantom regiment. the midwest corps were a lot closer with information than people thought.i'm sure you know the carrels and the listings just to name a few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

farrells not carrels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and listings not listings. spellcheck is bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kistings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So, you spoke with corps members who told you this? That's interesting! Not sure why they would have information that the rest of the corps did not. Not necessarily disputing your claim, just trying to understand how it was made known to those members and not the rest. Guess I could reach out to them, but that was a while ago!  I also don't dispute that it was Regiment that may have made the claim. Not sure how anyone there would have known? That information had to come from somewhere.

However, I do dispute your 'hater' claim. If a corps was marching ineligible members regardless of the understanding of the rule, there are obviously consequences. It has / had nothing to do with the organization 'hating' anyone. In fact, two years later, the corps hung out together in the parking lot at DCI North.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...