gellio Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 (edited) oops Edited December 17, 2003 by gellio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gellio Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 (edited) oops Edited December 17, 2003 by gellio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gellio Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 (edited) .d Edited December 17, 2003 by gellio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gellio Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 (edited) oops Edited December 17, 2003 by gellio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gellio Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 (edited) oops Edited December 17, 2003 by gellio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gellio Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 (edited) man. Edited December 17, 2003 by gellio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BennyBassDrum Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 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. The Bridgemen did NOT create the problem-it was the ambiguity of DCI rules. If you really dig into it, I think you'll find that to be the truth.......Benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinisenberg Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 The Bridgemen did NOT create the problem-it was the ambiguity of DCI rules. If you really dig into it, I think you'll find that to be the truth.......Benny Hi -- I'm a long time lurker but first time poster. Just want to clarify... are you really saying that DCI's age limit rule was ambiguous in '77 (despite what happend to Muchachos in '75 and Crossmen in '76)? I just need to see if that's what you're really saying. If it is, then I don't even know where to begin my argument -- and would rather not. I hope I'm simpy misunderstanding what you're trying to say, so I'm just asking for your clarification. Thanks for your input! Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BennyBassDrum Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 The Bridgemen did NOT create the problem-it was the ambiguity of DCI rules. If you really dig into it, I think you'll find that to be the truth.......Benny Hi -- I'm a long time lurker but first time poster. Just want to clarify... are you really saying that DCI's age limit rule was ambiguous in '77 (despite what happend to Muchachos in '75 and Crossmen in '76)? I just need to see if that's what you're really saying. If it is, then I don't even know where to begin my argument -- and would rather not. I hope I'm simpy misunderstanding what you're trying to say, so I'm just asking for your clarification. Thanks for your input! Kevin Thats exactly what I'm saying. I wont go into the specifics, but I know that it had somthing to do with the 21 vs the 22 year old limit. So, yes, it was ambiguious at best. Were the Bridgemen 100% correct in their stand? No, but neither was DCI-it hurt DCI's credability, and surely didnt do the Bridgemen alot of good. I have alot of bad feelings about DCI because of that. I was there, in the stands and saw the performance(at that particular time, I was on active duty stationed in Denver-specifically at Fitzsimmons Army Med Center)-It was one of the best performances ever by the Bridgemen. Now, can we please end this once and for all-recapping wont change history..............Benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byline Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 The Bridgemen did NOT create the problem-it was the ambiguity of DCI rules. If you really dig into it, I think you'll find that to be the truth.......Benny Hi -- I'm a long time lurker but first time poster. Just want to clarify... are you really saying that DCI's age limit rule was ambiguous in '77 (despite what happend to Muchachos in '75 and Crossmen in '76)? I just need to see if that's what you're really saying. If it is, then I don't even know where to begin my argument -- and would rather not. I hope I'm simpy misunderstanding what you're trying to say, so I'm just asking for your clarification. Thanks for your input! Kevin Thats exactly what I'm saying. I wont go into the specifics, but I know that it had somthing to do with the 21 vs the 22 year old limit. So, yes, it was ambiguious at best. Were the Bridgemen 100% correct in their stand? No, but neither was DCI-it hurt DCI's credability, and surely didnt do the Bridgemen alot of good. I have alot of bad feelings about DCI because of that. I was there, in the stands and saw the performance(at that particular time, I was on active duty stationed in Denver-specifically at Fitzsimmons Army Med Center)-It was one of the best performances ever by the Bridgemen. I'm not sure where the ambiguity in the rules comes from. But, then again, I didn't march in '77. My first year to march was '78. And maybe all that was clarified as a result of what happened to Bridgemen in '77. But as I recall, the rules back then said you could march up through the age of 21. If your 22nd birthday occurred at any point on the day of or prior to DCI finals, you could not march that season. For example, my birthday is in late November, so I marched as a 21-year-old during my last season with Oakland. But if my 22nd birthday had occurred, say, on August 1, I would not have been eligible to march that season. Here's a post that notes what happened, and that apparently there was some confusion over DCI's rules regarding the age limit. Wish someone could find a copy of the Bobby Hoffman interview John mentions, because that would probably clear up why there was confusion about the age-out rule: Re: 77 Bridgemen Part II 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.