Jump to content

Why would a corps ever find it "Justify"-able to use an overaged member?


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, HockeyDad said:

I thought it was. No reason to be coy about it though. So maybe it was Phantom. My point is that it doesn’t matter who it was. The problem was with Bridgemen, not those who reported them. 

Wasn't trying to be coy. All I said was it wasn't the Cavies in this case.

I have no firm idea which corps was involved, other than it not being the Cavaliers.  LOL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, HockeyDad said:

It’s not Cavies fault Bayonne didn’t follow the rules. And if Bayonne DID follow the rules as I’ve seen others say, it’s not Cavies fault DCI disqualified them. Don’t hate the player, hate the game. 

Nope. Close, but no cigar. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fran Haring said:

Wasn't trying to be coy. All I said was it wasn't the Cavies in this case.

I have no firm idea which corps was involved, other than it not being the Cavaliers.  LOL. 

“Coy” was directed not at you, but rather the poster who mentioned a “certain corps from the Midwest”

Edited by HockeyDad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, HockeyDad said:

“Coy” was directed not at you, but rather the poster who mentioned a “certain corps from the Midwest”

Yep... after I posted, I re-read and figured as much, but it was too late.  LOL. Good thing I don't have my finger on any nuke trigger. :tongue:

My opinion is the Bridgemen did try to play by the rules, but something in the interpretation, or communication, of those rules went wrong.

But you're right.  That is up to the corps... any corps... with the problem to address the issue, not the corps that reports that supposed problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Fran Haring said:

I don't think it was the Cavies in this case.

I don’t know if I ever heard it was Cavies who ratted out Bridgemen. The favorite rumor in the Boston area was a corps that did not want to fall from the top three was the culprit. No corps was mentioned, but SCV was the only logical choice. Phantom had not yet made the top three though they would that season, and no one thought Blue Devils would tumble. 

I was not a huge Bridgemen fan in 1977 though I did’nt dislike them either, I just enjoyed other corps more, so I’m sure I was not all that bothered by the situation. Since that time, I’ve watched the show numerous times on DVD, and while I see an amazing performance, you can also see a real look of disappointment on their faces and while I understand that the corps broke a rule and faced the consequences, the ones who really suffered were the marching members who had no say in what happened. 

To get back to the original poster’s question, since placement and wining are so important, I don’t think risking it all for a talented player would be worth it. As Fran Haring points out, the wording was a bit ambiguous in 1977, so there’s no excuse today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Tim K said:

I don’t know if I ever heard it was Cavies who ratted out Bridgemen. The favorite rumor in the Boston area was a corps that did not want to fall from the top three was the culprit. No corps was mentioned, but SCV was the only logical choice. Phantom had not yet made the top three though they would that season, and no one thought Blue Devils would tumble. 

I was not a huge Bridgemen fan in 1977 though I did’nt dislike them either, I just enjoyed other corps more, so I’m sure I was not all that bothered by the situation. Since that time, I’ve watched the show numerous times on DVD, and while I see an amazing performance, you can also see a real look of disappointment on their faces and while I understand that the corps broke a rule and faced the consequences, the ones who really suffered were the marching members who had no say in what happened. 

To get back to the original poster’s question, since placement and wining are so important, I don’t think risking it all for a talented player would be worth it. As Fran Haring points out, the wording was a bit ambiguous in 1977, so there’s no excuse today. 

It wasn't Cavies - they were ones that ratted out Muchachos.  For a complete discussion of the whole sordid mess (sordid may be too soft a term) see 

I had always heard it was Phantom who outed Bayonne - there was certainly no love between them in the late 1970s.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

It wasn't Cavies - they were ones that ratted out Muchachos.  For a complete discussion of the whole sordid mess (sordid may be too soft a term) see 

I had always heard it was Phantom who outed Bayonne - there was certainly no love between them in the late 1970s.

Bingo!!  It was Phantom at least in the eyes of Bayonne at the time - and to this day.

But after 42 years......meh. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 84BDsop said:

In the case of 89 SCV, it was fraud by the overage members...forged documents that fooled everyone (including US authorities).  As soon as Gail found out, they were gone.

hence why I stated "comes with many nuances." I was there and no well what happened at those DCI sessions.

Link to comment
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...