Sign in to follow this  
George Dixon

WGI & FloMarching

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, BRASSO said:

 There is some history that would point to the inconsistency of the application of penalties anyway.

 DCI HQ was confronted with 2 similar cases of reporting to them of  Corps using overage marchers. In one case, when they were informed after semi Finals at Championships, they quickly DQ that Corps from Finals Night participation ( 1975 ). In the 2nd case, ( in 1989 ) they allowed that Corps to go out and compete at Finals ( minus the 2 overage nmarchers). DCI justified their actions with the statement that in the 1st case, a rival Corps brought the info to them, while in the 2nd case, the Corps using overage marchers self reported the DCI prohibition against using overage marchers. In both cases, there was clearly the establishment of the prohibited use of over age marchers. The only fundamental difference was the reporting of such to DCI. DCI could have elected to DQ the overage marcher, ( in '75 ) and allowed the Corps to similarly compete on finals Night, But instead, DCI decided to penalize the entire Corps and their marchers, and summarily dismissed their opportunity to compete ( nor even allowed to perform in exhibition ) on Finals Night for that Corps  in '75.

 DCI HQ, with the reported knowledge that a Corps utilized 2 overage marchers all that season of "89 ( except on Finals Night ) took no action later to disqualify those competition results of that Corps that season prior to Finals Night, nor was there any effort by DCI HQ to make the Corps return any show monies for placements/ wins that season in which they marched overage marchers in competition, and collected those placement and win monies essentially illegally.. That Corps competed on Finals Night ( minus their overage marchers ), and won themselves a DCI Title that season of '89. There is a phrase in the legal field that says that " ignorance before the law is no excuse ". The claim that the Corps in '89 did not know it had competed illegally with overage marchers that season is perhaps accurate , But if this was most sports ( including the NCAA ) if a school... even unknowingly... utilized illegal players in competition, they would forfeit all their games played that season, pay  steep financial and sanctions penalties, and if found at NCAA Tournament time, they'd absolutely be DQ'd from further tournament play, even if the school self reported the illegal participation of some of its players to the League once they found out about it themselves.  But Yes, the 2nd corps with not one, but two, overage marchers in '89 had influential people ( a DCI Founder Member ) that DCI  quickly acquiesced too and gave a different outcome than the entire Corps they DQ in 75 for the exact same violation, ie, the utilization throughout the DCI season of long established league rules prohibiting the utilization of overage marchers in competition.

In other words, all corps are equal but some are more equal than others.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jurassic Lancer said:

In other words, all corps are equal but some are more equal than others.

 That could make for a good show theme for a Corps some day... no wait...umm.. uh...uh...never mind..:biggrin:

  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong but i believe SCV self-reported and got them out before they competed finals week.  There is a difference between knowingly breaking the rule and doing all due diligence and finding out that government documents had been falsified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2019 at 11:14 AM, BRASSO said:

 Speaking of the Bluecoats Guard, it was unfortunate to see they had a Sound malfunction last nite. It caused them a delay in their start to their show after being alerted to start. It caused them a 1.4 point penalty, and 2 placement positions as a result of that 1.4 pt penalty. Thats most unfortunate and regrettable when it happens to the performers as its something that is completely beyond their control.

I do feel for the kids. As someone who runs watches for a local circuit and has to enforce the rules, unfortunately rules and rules, and the member units propose those rules. How long do we give someone a pass and wait for electronics issues, be it indoor or outdoor? Shows have schedules they must keep, and that schedule dictates tons of things other groups do, and is often dictated by venues and things like that. So yes it sucks, but, rules are rules, and if the staff can't make it work, there has to be  some sort of consequences.

 

I once went to a show in a circuit where they just let then watch die and wait for someone to get electronics working. the show ended up a 1/2 hour behind....which meant schools were late getting kids home, having to pay for busses extra since they ended up home after midnight, and yes I know WGI is a different trip but....#### happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2019 at 2:47 PM, mingusmonk said:

DCI is only forgiving on timing penalties at the beginning of the season. At championships, they would not be forgiving. 

DCI does have a grace period rule i believe before the watch starts running again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2019 at 9:36 PM, Fran Haring said:

On the flip side of that... the Crossmen nearly missed finals twice in recent years, with penalties for separate transgressions at semifinals  (one year a performance-time penalty that I believe was caused by an electronics problem, and another year a penalty for not using the approved warmup area).

So while I agree with you about the corps with the vocalist issue ... try telling the Crossmen folks that DCI is forgiving during championship weekend.  LOL.

the issue with during a show isn't the T&P person, it's the actual judges. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2019 at 10:07 PM, BRASSO said:

   DCI HQ, with the reported knowledge that a Corps utilized 2 overage marchers all that season of "89 ( except on Finals Night ) took no action later to disqualify those competition results of that Corps that season prior to Finals Night, nor was there any effort by DCI HQ to make the Corps return any show monies for placements/ wins that season in which they marched overage marchers in competition, and collected those placement and win monies essentially illegally..  

 

2 hours ago, cage said:

I could be wrong but i believe SCV self-reported and got them out before they competed finals week.   

Maybe not before finals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2019 at 12:07 AM, BRASSO said:

 There is some history that would point to the inconsistency of the application of penalties anyway.

 DCI HQ was confronted with 2 similar cases of reporting to them of  Corps using overage marchers. In one case, when they were informed after semi Finals at Championships, they quickly DQ that Corps from Finals Night participation ( 1975 ). In the 2nd case, ( in 1989 ) they allowed that Corps to go out and compete at Finals ( minus the 2 overage nmarchers). DCI justified their actions with the statement that in the 1st case, a rival Corps brought the info to them, while in the 2nd case, the Corps using overage marchers self reported the DCI prohibition against using overage marchers. In both cases, there was clearly the establishment of the prohibited use of over age marchers. The only fundamental difference was the reporting of such to DCI. DCI could have elected to DQ the overage marcher, ( in '75 ) and allowed the Corps to similarly compete on finals Night, But instead, DCI decided to penalize the entire Corps and their marchers, and summarily dismissed their opportunity to compete ( nor even allowed to perform in exhibition ) on Finals Night for that Corps  in '75.

 DCI HQ, with the reported knowledge that a Corps utilized 2 overage marchers all that season of "89 ( except on Finals Night ) took no action later to disqualify those competition results of that Corps that season prior to Finals Night, nor was there any effort by DCI HQ to make the Corps return any show monies for placements/ wins that season in which they marched overage marchers in competition, and collected those placement and win monies essentially illegally.. That Corps competed on Finals Night ( minus their overage marchers ), and won themselves a DCI Title that season of '89. There is a phrase in the legal field that says that " ignorance before the law is no excuse ". The claim that the Corps in '89 did not know it had competed illegally with overage marchers that season is perhaps accurate , But if this was most sports ( including the NCAA ) if a school... even unknowingly... utilized illegal players in competition, they would forfeit all their games played that season, pay  steep financial and sanctions penalties, and if found at NCAA Tournament time, they'd absolutely be DQ'd from further tournament play, even if the school self reported the illegal participation of some of its players to the League once they found out about it themselves.  But Yes, the 2nd corps with not one, but two, overage marchers in '89 had influential people ( a DCI Founder Member ) that DCI  quickly acquiesced too and gave a different outcome than the entire Corps they DQ in 75 for the exact same violation, ie, the utilization throughout the DCI season of long established league rules prohibiting the utilization of overage marchers in competition.

you also overlook at the corps was given documents that were forged, and let them in. When they found out they had been presented with falsified documents, they self reported. Thats the key. in 75, the corps knew it had overage members ( as did those disqualified in 76 and 77) and still went ahead with it.

 

but why let some important facts get in the way of a good story

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2019 at 11:41 AM, BRASSO said:

 Well, if we want to compare similarities, a brass solo that is  completely botched as designed to be played in competition performance, apparently suffers FAR more loss of potential build up points on today's judging sheets than a singing solo that is completely botched as designed to be sung. Singing solos tend to be much longer in duration than brass solos in performance too. The singing solo was not the performer's fault. DCI judges apparently decided to award build up points on " how it was supposed to be performed ", not on " how it was performed, delivered, and received ". Thats a rather novel and new judging criteria, we must admit. When has a brass solo, unmic'd, that was completely botched in deliverance to the ears of audience and judges alike, received build up points on " how it was supposed to be performed " rather than " how it was performed and delivered. "

 As for the delay penalty the Bluecoats Guard received this weekend at WGI Championships, DCI Corps have had delays in starting ... even at Championships... and not penalized.  Just sayin.'

as posted earlier, DCI has a grace period of a certain amount of time before the watches start running again and making penalties add up. it's been covered here before

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cage said:

I could be wrong but i believe SCV self-reported and got them out before they competed finals week.  There is a difference between knowingly breaking the rule and doing all due diligence and finding out that government documents had been falsified.

shhh facts

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.