DKracing Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Read closer, it's one year and five months. I would somewhat agree with the calendar year, I just don't know why they added another year. No, it's just worded strangely. It is only 5 months. "In order to be eligible to perform as a member of a corps participating in Drum Corps International, a participant must be 22 years of age or younger, during the calendar year of the competitions. As an example, in 2008, as long as a participant does not turn 23 until January 1, 2009 or later, the individual would be allowed participation rights in the drum corps of their choice" Currently, the highlighted part is true now, only it just applies to June onwards. The calender year in which you turn 22 is your age out year. Right now, the rule in the same wording would be: "In order to be eligible to perform as a member of a corps participating in Drum Corps International, a participant must be 22 years of age or younger, after June 1st of the calendar year of the competitions. As an example, in 2008, as long as a participant does not turn 23 until June 1, 2009 or later, the individual would be allowed participation rights in the drum corps of their choice" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle B Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 I'm thinking its a typo since none of these rules would take effect next year in 2008, stating January 1st, 2009 as a cutoff would be pushing it back for the 2009 season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKracing Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 I'm thinking its a typo since none of these rules would take effect next year in 2008, stating January 1st, 2009 as a cutoff would be pushing it back for the 2009 season. I think he was just using this coming year to give a clear example. Then again who knows what the heck he means in any of these proposals, for all we know he forgot whole sentences that we don't even know about :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niteblaze102 Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 (edited) , Edited October 7, 2008 by niteblaze102 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbyk Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 My B-day is May 31....I would've liked this proposal two years ago so I could've marched PR 06.....oh well. Probably for the best since I found my career that summer...haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKracing Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 So wait. My birthday is January 19th, 1989. (I am 18 now). According to this, would I be able to march 5 times as opposed to 3? 4 times. You would turn 22 in 2011, so that would be your age out year. Current rule, you would age out in 2010. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triplefunk Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 bah, I wish they proposed and passed that last year. I'd be going for it last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niteblaze102 Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 4 times. You would turn 22 in 2011, so that would be your age out year.Current rule, you would age out in 2010. Yeah thanks, I'm ########. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexL Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 This would mean less kids would be involved in drum corps but for longer - taking spots from others so much for youth activity taking spots from others? there are plenty of spots open. most corps are still looking for people in june. Many corps dont field the full 135 (which will im sure be affected in some way by the new 150 rule). number of spots isnt an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regisminae Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 But competitive advantage from holding on to veterans for an additional year. Who will this proposal benefit? Top corps hold on to most of their vets. Lower corps don't as much. This proposal would cause the gap between corps with the prestige to retain the majority of their membership and those who struggle with recruiting to grow even wider, because the top corps will be, on average, that much more experienced following this proposal. I would vote nay, but then again, that's just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.