Navillus WP Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 (edited) My age-out was 30 APR 1973, before the DCI deadline of "turning 21 after June first." DCI put a lot of attention to communicating that a push was on by show coordinators to monitor strict adherence to the age limit. Accordingly, I didn't compete in 1973 or thereafter in junior drum corps. It was very, very clear to us at that time DCI history what would happen if "ringers" (over-age members) marched and it was detected: disqualification. We all read Drum Corps News. We all knew DCI was making the consequence for marching ringers to more that a slap on the wrist. During my three-year stretch with Two-Seven, everybody knew who was a ringer, who as legit, and who was about to age-out. Organizations that didn't intend to strictly comply with DCI rules weren't forced to belong to DCI. No one twisted their arms. Whether it be regulations or laws, if you break the rules/law and get caught, you can't cry foul. Edited October 14, 2011 by Navillus WP 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 I guess the question is...Who are we really punishing? In the end the DQ's punish the kids that are "of age". The overage kids walk away, what do they get? The adults take some blame BUT if I were an 18 year old kid in Muchachos in 1975, I would HATE drum corps after that! I would love to hear from those Muchacho members that were there. If what was said was true then... One person forced the disqualification of 134 kids. I don't blame DCI for this, I blame the practices of the past. You do realize there is a glaring contradiction in your post; on one hand you state that you would hate drum corps because the rule punishes the of-age kids then you turn around and state that you do not blame DCI for the rule. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 In '89 why do you think Royer took those violators aside and told them they needed to get out of there under the cover of darkness before the members discovered what was going on? Simply because the rule works!!! Royer knew that the legit of-age members would have pummeled those violators "not" for forgery, "not" for lying, but for causing harm (to all of SCV). That is why it is such a good rule; it is a self internal check to keep everyone clean. A person who violates the rule facing the individual figurative boot from DCI is one thing; but a person facing the literal boot from hundreds of members who all just got disqualified along with that person is one of the best things that keeps everyone within the activity in check. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsjazz Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 To respond to the "win as team, lose as a team" mantra....did the entire team particpate in the cheat? The adults that were in charge, were in charge. They, and only they, held the power to determine whether the rules would be followed....not some 15 year old kid playing cymbals. The corps director ought to have been banned for life and the organization that chose not to implement appropriate procedures to ensure they had honest adults involved with their kids ought to have had sanctions imposed that were appropriate to the infraction. It is terribly wrong minded for a youth actvity to impose the penalty upon the kids, for what was done by the dishoest adults who stood in a fiduciary relationship with them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 (edited) To respond to the "win as team, lose as a team" mantra....did the entire team particpate in the cheat? The adults that were in charge, were in charge. They, and only they, held the power to determine whether the rules would be followed....not some 15 year old kid playing cymbals. The corps director ought to have been banned for life and the organization that chose not to implement appropriate procedures to ensure they had honest adults involved with their kids ought to have had sanctions imposed that were appropriate to the infraction. It is terribly wrong minded for a youth actvity to impose the penalty upon the kids, for what was done by the dishoest adults who stood in a fiduciary relationship with them. So you also have this same discontent toward the other youth associations like NCAA and the multitude of State High School Associations which have the same sort of DQ rule for teams when individuals cheat in the same manner? Edited October 15, 2011 by Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 And so you did interview all of them to support your position? But that does not matter!!! A corps is a team; it wins as a team; it loses as a team; one for all and all for one; once the uniform is put on that person becomes a representative of the whole no more or no less important than any other person wearing the same uniform; give me a name of the most important member of any corps of any season (uhhh... sorry, you cannot) Jeff Kivet in 74/75 Muchachos would be a start... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Jeff Kivet in 74/75 Muchachos would be a start... Interesting; I have the '74 video ready to pop into the DVD player. Which member is he and how does he carry the entire corps to the 4th place finish as the most important player in the entire corps? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsjazz Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 So you also have this same discontent toward the other youth associations like NCAA and the multitude of State High School Associations which have the same sort of DQ rule for teams when individuals cheat in the same manner? Of course. Wrong minded is wrong minded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Of course. Wrong minded is wrong minded. So, what about all the innocent youth who were beaten in competition because over-age members were on the other team. What justice is there for them if the wins of the offending team are not disqualified? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsjazz Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 So, what about all the innocent youth who were beaten in competition because over-age members were on the other team. What justice is there for them if the wins of the offending team are not disqualified? Two wrongs don't make a right. If, and only if, there is evidence that an advantage was obtained by the breach of the rule, should the advantage obtained be taken away. If there was no advantage achieved, no innocent kid was "beaten in competition" by the breach of the rule. The penalty then remains the problem of those who are most culpable...the adults who made it happen. Appropriate sanctioning of the organization - not the kids- responds to concerns of presumptive advantage and to deterrence. 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.