Blue Devils 2007

[audiodb]

Could somebody please link to this?

The original thread on this topic:

link

Edited May 23, 2008 by audiodb

[gbass598]

I only read about 2 pages of this thread but i'm amazed at how many people said "They are the Blue devils, don't you think they would have checked?"

I don't think the New England Patriots checked with the NFL before they recorded other teams walk throughs.

No matter if it is drum corps, professional sports, or the business world it is cut-throat at the top. Everyone will take every sort of advantage they think they can get away with to win.

I'm not saying this matters or not because frankly BD would have still won anyway (even though I think it is a travesty that they won percussion) or that they violated the spirit of competition or anything like that. Frankly that rule has a lot of gray area to it because it doesn't appear to list enough specifics from what I have read.

If you think it is cool and helps your program be more effective why not try it? What's the worst thing anyone can say? No.

Apparently nobody told BD no so they aren't in the wrong in any way. more power to them. I have no issues with it.

Edited May 23, 2008 by gbass598

[jdostie]

What's grey? Synthesized sound was not allowed. We know that because a proposal allowing sythesized sound specifically was not passed.

HH

Can't argue, I don't know enough facts about that. Seems like others here think it may have been gray, I don't know.

But from what's been posted it was never challenged.

Had it been challenged, even on finals night, we could well have had a scandal - possibly either side could have felt cheated. If ruled against BD, we'd be

discussing "how could DCI allow BD to do that all year and THEN slap them with a penalty," and on the other side, well we're kind of having that discussion now except that it was never challenged.

[Dale Bari]

I don't stipulate to 3 or 4. A more plausible explanation is the effect was missed, in which case you can't draw many of the conclusions many here want to draw.

In my four hearings of the Devils last summer, I never once noticed. What's more, after the issue was raised on these boards in September, I also missed it every time I listened to their show subsequently on CD. Not that my auditory ability rates as the DCI standard. I just think it's more reasonable to think this effect didn't garner enough attention to generate an investigation - so it went unnoticed by the officials of DCI and other corps.

BD is the only one to know for certain what it was doing. That's why I think the focus of blame (if that's the proper term) on DCI and not BD is misplaced.

HH

My earlier analysis of the actual situation is fairly aligned with yours. (And I think most posters here have landed on this position.)

There are a couple (well, one anyway) recalcitrant posters here that I was trying to tweak with my stipulations. I didn't necessarily agree with any of those points. (That's why they are stipulated.) One can only reach those two conclusions IF all four points were true.

Actually, once you separate out the chaff, it's amazing the degree of agreement that we have reached, considering the number of different repeat posters.

[Michael Boo]

I've got to give Cowtown credit: He knows how to get people talking.

[Liam]

Can't argue, I don't know enough facts about that. Seems like others here think it may have been gray, I don't know.

But from what's been posted it was never challenged.

Had it been challenged, even on finals night, we could well have had a scandal - possibly either side could have felt cheated. If ruled against BD, we'd be

discussing "how could DCI allow BD to do that all year and THEN slap them with a penalty," and on the other side, well we're kind of having that discussion now except that it was never challenged.

Agreed.

Let's say in a totally hypothetical situation that a corps did in fact break a rule all season. Let's further say that it was inadvertant -- honest misinterpretation of the rule. Could be an age thing, an instrumenation thing, whatever. Let's further say that the rule violation is eventually deemed clear by DCI and should result in, say, a 1 point penalty.

So pretending that we all agree to the above, if the transgression went unnoticed all year (innocently) and was then noticed and penalized on Finals night (and let's assume no conspiracies or hidden agendas or anything like that), you bet there would robust discussion on here about it.

Can't speak for everyone, of course, but my position would be that the penalty on Finals night was proper (if unfortunate), but the real issue is what was wrong with the compliance/enforcement all year that it was missed until then. I would question the judges training or the compliance checks or whatever infrastructure should have been in place to enforce the rules as written.

So again, in my opinion, is comes down to establishing solid, clear rules and then enforcing them consistently and fully and openly. Otherwise, there's no point in having rules at all. And this advice applies to all walks of life -- sports, business, households, whatever.

[Newseditor44]

BFD...

Can we move on to 2008 now?

[jdostie]

Let me adjust my statement that said you can't write rules for every eventuality, it's true, but you can sure try:

Amplification devices may be used to amplify pit instruments and vocal (whatever). No alterations other than amplification

for the purposes of volume (insert better language here) will be permitted.

Use of amplification equipment in any manner not specifically permitted in this ruling shall not be allowed (insert appropriate legaleze).

In other words, you can do this, and only this, and unless I say otherwise you can't do anything else. In the event that you do something else that I didn't say you could do, you are violating the rule I made, unless of course I meant for you to do it in the first place, but my rule was not clear enough. But of course I will not write it clearly enough, because there won't be enough words to make sure that you don't do the stuff that I don't want you to do, which I won't mention here because I don't know what they are until you do them. Therefore, and with malice and forethought, I decree this rule to be final and unalterable except in the event that alteration is desireable by me, in which case I may alter it.

Oh, I started out serious, and lost it.

[jdostie]

Agreed.

Let's say in a totally hypothetical situation that a corps did in fact break a rule all season. Let's further say that it was inadvertant -- honest misinterpretation of the rule. Could be an age thing, an instrumenation thing, whatever. Let's further say that the rule violation is eventually deemed clear by DCI and should result in, say, a 1 point penalty.

So pretending that we all agree to the above, if the transgression went unnoticed all year (innocently) and was then noticed and penalized on Finals night (and let's assume no conspiracies or hidden agendas or anything like that), you bet there would robust discussion on here about it.

Can't speak for everyone, of course, but my position would be that the penalty on Finals night was proper (if unfortunate), but the real issue is what was wrong with the compliance/enforcement all year that it was missed until then. I would question the judges training or the compliance checks or whatever infrastructure should have been in place to enforce the rules as written.

So again, in my opinion, is comes down to establishing solid, clear rules and then enforcing them consistently and fully and openly. Otherwise, there's no point in having rules at all. And this advice applies to all walks of life -- sports, business, households, whatever.

Agreed.

[bawker]

BFD...

Can we move on to 2008 now?

Still a few more days left before we can do that. . .