PurpleKnights Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 The SCV case in 1989, just in case anyone brings that up, was different in that the two members from England had faked birth certificates. Those in charge of implementing policy realized there was no way any corps could shield itself from such an action. I never did hear whatever came of those who had faked their birth certificates. I was wondering what sort of legal thing that might have violated, if any. I imagine the two members would be liable for fraud, although I'm sure SCV never took legal action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCIHasBeen Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 I never did hear whatever came of those who had faked their birth certificates. I was wondering what sort of legal thing that might have violated, if any. Nothing happened ... They went back to England and marched the end of that season (because DCUK allowed a couple of members up to the age of 25, nobody in England cared.) I don't remember which corps ... Think it might have been Basildon or Dagenham. Yeah, they falsified their passports ... A crime that would probably have more severe implications today, but apparently it was never reported, or nobody cared. As one East Coast Corps Director put it ... "I would have left them in the gym, closed the doors, and let the corps deal with it." Surprised those two didn't leave the country in more pieces than they entered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdostie Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 As I read that, it sounds as if the difference in interpretations MIGHT have been that one side saw it as a member couldn't march at all during the season if they were to turn 22 on or before the day of Finals, while the other side saw it that a member could march as long as they weren't 22 at the time. Is that correct?Whatever, it was a devastating thing to happen and it SEEMS as if it was over something that was right on the edge of being one way or the other. May we never have such an incident happen again. The SCV case in 1989, just in case anyone brings that up, was different in that the two members from England had faked birth certificates. Those in charge of implementing policy realized there was no way any corps could shield itself from such an action. I never did hear whatever came of those who had faked their birth certificates. I was wondering what sort of legal thing that might have violated, if any. The age limit at the time was 21, so if your 21st birthday was before finals you could not march (that was my understanding). It appears that Bridgemen's understanding was that you could not march on the day of the contest if you were 21 or older. So they had additional (younger) members of the corps ready to step up and take the place of the person aging out as the season progressed; that (also) would have been consistent with my understanding of the rule - back in the day. That they conflict, I think is where the problem was . . . Generally, I think the rule was for the day of the contest if you were 21 or older you were not eligable to march, BUT, it was probably assumed that if you were going to be 21 by finals that you would not bother marching that season. I never actually read the rule, that's just what we all thought it meant. Until today I never knew that's what happened with Bridgemen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 I just finished cleaning up a bunch of posts in this thread. Please, no more personal attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
84BDsop Posted May 24, 2008 Author Share Posted May 24, 2008 Nothing happened ... They went back to England and marched the end of that season (because DCUK allowed a couple of members up to the age of 25, nobody in England cared.) I don't remember which corps ... Think it might have been Basildon or Dagenham. I hope it wasn't Dagenham....I'd hate to think it was someone I marched with in 86...or that somehow my presence that year inspired it. To clarify the DCUK rule at the time....you were allowed to have a certain percentage of each major section (brass, perc, guard) tobe over DCI age...don't remember the percentage, unfortunately, but it was 10% or less. When I joined, Dag's brass line had it's quota, but the drum line didn't, which is how I ended up on cymbals. As one East Coast Corps Director put it ... "I would have left them in the gym, closed the doors, and let the corps deal with it." Surprised those two didn't leave the country in more pieces than they entered. As I heard the story from one of the tenor players several years back....when Gail found out about the fraud, he called the 2 aside during a corps break and said that they might want to NOT be around when the corps found out.... Mike Boo: After reading the thread....I think that would be my thoughts as to the controversy as well. and I suppose that would be the argument in court that got Bmen back on the field for finals. Lance....I hope none of those attacks were directeed at me (I miss all the good stuff!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piper Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 (edited) ....The SCV case in 1989, just in case anyone brings that up, was different in that the two members from England had faked birth certificates. Those in charge of implementing policy realized there was no way any corps could shield itself from such an action. I never did hear whatever came of those who had faked their birth certificates. I was wondering what sort of legal thing that might have violated, if any. I don't know about the legalities, but as far as SCV (or any corps for that matter) is concerned, when they have a member from overseas, they have to have a passport to get here in the first place, which has your D.O.B. firmly embedded in it. I know that mine does. Much harder to fake than a birth certificate. They should have checked it, but that's just hindsight, which is easy sight. JMO Edited May 24, 2008 by Piper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecoats88 Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 If I remember correctly, it was that the marcher must be 21 (or younger) on the date of DCI finals. So if finals was August 18th, and your birthday was August 18th, you couldn't march your 21st year. However, if your birthday was August 19th you were allowed to march that year. yep and it sucked for a sanre drummer of ours in 1984 whose birthday was on finals day and even though our season would end at least 2 days before finals he still was not allowed to march by the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted May 25, 2008 Share Posted May 25, 2008 As I read that, it sounds as if the difference in interpretations MIGHT have been that one side saw it as a member couldn't march at all during the season if they were to turn 22 on or before the day of Finals, while the other side saw it that a member could march as long as they weren't 22 at the time. Is that correct? That's my understanding. The SCV case in 1989, just in case anyone brings that up, was different in that the two members from England had faked birth certificates. Yes....but it is also similar in that neither corps intended to deviate from the rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
84BDsop Posted May 25, 2008 Author Share Posted May 25, 2008 (edited) Yes....but it is also similar in that neither corps intended to deviate from the rule. Yeah...but the difference is one was a difference of rules interpretation, the other was out and out fraud by the members involved. And it IS possible to fake a passport...they fooled immigration authorities as well as SCV. I wonder if the situation re Bmen (and the above Bluecoats one) would've been handled differently if it has been the modern Dan A in charge instead of Don Peceone....I had a chance to talk to Don once when DCI first put out the word about using San Diego as a rotating finals site (late 80s....they were looking for 5 potential sites to rotate around)....he had a rep as a REAL hard ###...and I found that to be fairly true....definitely a my-way-or-the-highway vibe there... If it had been me, I would've said the members involved certainly COULD march, so long as they were verified OFF the field on their B day... Edited May 25, 2008 by 84BDsop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindap Posted May 25, 2008 Share Posted May 25, 2008 yep and it sucked for a sanre drummer of ours in 1984 whose birthday was on finals day and even though our season would end at least 2 days before finals he still was not allowed to march by the rules. i'm old school...but my birthday is in July and brother's is in August...we both marched long ago...we toured all summer...no summer specific cutoff date is what i propose...maybe the age we mostly were when touring between June to August...bottom line, the cut off date is tough on summer babies...same for schools if you were born in March...something like that 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.