mobrien Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 (edited) I'd have to believe that some of what happened to Bayonne in '77 was the result of carried-over fervor from the Muchachos DQ in '75. The feeling I got at the time was that DCI looked at the situation (two corps from roughly the same neck of the woods, with some membership and staff carryover), and was tougher than they might have been because they were trying to show that "you can't get away from the DCI police". In SCV's case, I suspect that the intervening years (and reflection on the Bridgemen situation) brought some calm to the process and instilled a greater sense of proportion. That doesn't help Bayonne, but then again, the show is still out there on the DVD, so the kids' efforts that year were not in vain. Edited November 26, 2003 by mobrien Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malibu Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 (edited) I'd have to believe that some of what happened to Bayonne in '77 was the result of carried-over fervor from the Muchachos DQ in '75. That doesn't help Bayonne, but then again, the show is still out there on the DVD, so the kids' efforts that year were not in vain. Isn't it ironic how only corps from the east have been DQ? Makes you think that all the "bad boys" were from the east who enjoyed breaking the rules.....BUT... we know better! Yes, I think it was good of DCI to include the '77 Bridgemen performance in the DVDs......too bad '75 Muchachos or '76 Crossmen couldn't have been shown that same curtesy. Edited November 26, 2003 by Malibu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scerpella Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 Dan,I believe they did announce a score and place. In finals it was in 4th place with a score of.... And Sue, I really do agree with you. Thanks for the conversation. It was nice, but I dont want it to get out of hand either and you know someone will come in here and take it to a new level. George I cant say for certain, but i was there and I dont recall them announcing Bridgemens score. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byline Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 Dan,I believe they did announce a score and place. In finals it was in 4th place with a score of.... And Sue, I really do agree with you. Thanks for the conversation. It was nice, but I dont want it to get out of hand either and you know someone will come in here and take it to a new level. George I cant say for certain, but i was there and I dont recall them announcing Bridgemens score. I wasn't there, so I can't personally comment on whether scores were announced, but in the posting I linked earlier, John says their score and placement were announced: Re: 77 Bridgemen Part II It's sort of ambiguous on the "A Bit of Bridgemen History" web page. The author says, "The Bridgemen competed in DCI finals due to an agreement reached between the corps and DCI. The Bridgemen would compete, and the matter would be decided by arbitration at a later date. If the corps had placed higher than fourth, the top three scores would not have been announced until the matter had been through arbitration." Obviously, the top three scores were announced. So either the fourth-place finish was not announced, but everyone knew who it was, or it was announced along with everybody else. I only have the DVD from that year, not the original telecast video. And the DVD has only the performances, not the announcement of placements and scores. It would be interesting if someone who has the original videotape could check that to see how the results were announced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobrien Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 ......too bad '75 Muchachos or '76 Crossmen couldn't have been shown that same curtesy. As far as I know, there is no video of Muchachos from 75. Ken Kobold recorded prelims (and the tape is widely available, though not through DCI), but KK always recorded everyone from Prelims... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobrien Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 I was in the stands, and as far as I can recall, they did announce the score for Bayonne. I remember being surprised that SCV beat them, since the Vanguard's show was a little flat that night, and Bayonne seemed to have a good performance (even if the M&M design was weaker in comparison to the top three). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmanbay41 Posted November 27, 2003 Share Posted November 27, 2003 I have checked with fellow alumni who marched and I checked the video and they did announce the Bridgemen score. And you are correct, if the Bridgemen finished in the top 3 ,scores would not be announced. Could you imagine if they did finish in top 3 and DCI could not announce the scores of who won regardless who it was. George Lavelle 79-83' Bridgemen 2003- Board Of Director Bridgemen Organization Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malibu Posted December 6, 2003 Share Posted December 6, 2003 This is from a couple who marched Bridgemen in '77; the two overage members marched at dci east and that was the show that dci got us on (even after don pesieon:not sure if that is the correct spelling: told us at dci midwest that is we pulled them where would be no further problems) they were pulled just before going on for midwest prelims, we were all lined up against a fence and carded like we were criminals. with the tic system those two blanks cost us about a point, about the same margin we lost to pr that night (can't remember the exact score or spread) and yes we had the two replacements ready to go in at the next show which was racine. with a full corps we were back in front of pr....we all figured that they got ###### and continued to push the issue with dci until they voted to dq us. they did announce our score at finals, they did not announce it at prelims (our lawyers accused dci of contempt of court with that one because an arbitration judge ruled that we were to be treated just as any unit in competition until a ruling was made). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gellio Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 This is an interesting discussion and it's nice to know what finally happened. I am surprised, that given the volation was caught well before DCI, that the corps was disqualified at finals. I would have thought they would have been disqualified from every show that the over-age members were in, and stripped of any titles they won at those shows. It is surprising that if the members were yanked before finals week that they were still disqualified. The article is interesting, but I find it utterly despicable that the writer attempts to blame Phantom Regiment for the disqualification, when it is NO ONE'S fault but the staff of the Bridgemen, who decided they didn't have to follow the rules. This is especially unbelievable, since you would think the Machachos and Crossmen would have really put the fear in future years - yet the Bridgemen keep the DQ streak going for three years! Complete stupidity and you reap what you sow! No one is to blame but the Bridgemen. That being said, I think the Phantom Regiment staff should have approached the Bridgemen staff first and said something like, "We know what's going on. Fix it by the next show or we'll report you." Still, it's not Phantom Regiment's responsibility to police the activity. If Bridgemen weren't breaking the rules, there would have been no violations to report. It really infuriates me because I never had the opportunity to see the Bridgemen at their competetive peak. Who knows what the future would have held for the organization if they had won DCI in 1977. Of course the judges did the right thing by making sure the Bridgemen didn't place top three, whether or not they should have. It would have been ridiculous to withhold the top 3 scores. The Bridgemen created the problem and they paid the consequences. No other corps should have had to suffer because of the rule-breaking by one. It is very unfortunate that the hard working youngsters had to suffer because of a moronic leadership! As far as SCV '89 goes - there is a BIG difference between what happened in 1977 and what happened in 1989. Knowing you're cheating (Bridgemen '77) and being the victims of fraud (SCV '89) are two completely different things. I think if you could fool the US Immigration, that fooling a Drum & Bugle Corps would be pretty simple. The Bridgemen knew they were breaking the rules. Santa Clara didn't. I am 100% certain that SCV would have never marched overage members. I was happy for them, that it was caught, before talk of disqualification surfaced. How was it discovered? Two different things SCV (innocent) vs. Bridgemen (guilty). Fair is fair, and the Bridgemen didn't play fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gellio Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 (edited) It said it failed, so I tried and tried, then the post showed up. Sorry for all the posts. Edited December 17, 2003 by gellio 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.