draugnav02 Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 After reading the history of the bridgemen in 77 it kinda makes me not like phantom very much...they were so mean and horrible...to bad i wasnt alive back them or me and the (helmet-headed miscreants) regiment would have had some words hahahahaha :P j/k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburstall Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 But yet SCV marched a couple overaged members in '89 (albeit, they didn't know at the time). Still, ignorance of the law, any law or rule, isn't an excuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Yes, but didn't those two SCV members use false documentation to convince the folks at SCV that they were of age?? I don't fault SCV for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draugnav02 Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 :( not SCV!!!!!!!! did phantom dime them out too, i wouldnt be surprised :P....lol j/k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byline Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 (edited) :( not SCV!!!!!!!! did phantom dime them out too, i wouldnt be surprised :P....lol j/k Here are some comments I posted in the other Bridgemen thread: In 1989, Santa Clara experienced a nearly identical situation and were allowed to compete . . . and, ultimately, win. (My understanding, based only on what I read about this on RAMD, is that two British members supplied false birthdates when applying for their passports. So their passports included incorrect birthdate information.) Once Santa Clara discovered the problem, the two members were booted (leaving two holes in the corps, which are clearly visible on the video). Still, in both cases, the overage members were dismissed from their respective corps, yet one corps was disqualified, the other not. Did DCI learn its lesson from its handling of the Bridgemen debacle, or was there a double-standard? Or was the difference simply one of knowledge and intent? On the surface, the two situations seem identical. On closer examination . . . I just don't know. Elsewhere in the RAMD thread, someone from Bridgemen alludes to incompetence on the part of the corps' management that resulted in their overage situation in '77. So did DCI make a distinction between not paying close enough attention to the rules, and paying close attention to the rules, but being fooled by falsified passports? Only someone from DCI can answer that question. Personally, I tend to side with consistency. If you hold one corps accountable for breaking the rules, then you should hold all corps accountable for breaking the rules. But then, that's easy for me to say because I don't know the specifics of all the various situations. In case anyone doesn't know the history of this situation, here's a posting about it from RAMD that explains it all pretty well: Santa Clara 1989 Edited December 16, 2003 by byline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soundpope Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 I may be remembering this incorrectly, but weren't the Crossmen disqualified in 1976 for a overage member? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byline Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 (edited) I may be remembering this incorrectly, but weren't the Crossmen disqualified in 1976 for a overage member? As well as the Muchachos in 1975. This, too, was discussed in the other Bridgmen thread. Edited December 16, 2003 by byline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malibu Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 I may be remembering this incorrectly, but weren't the Crossmen disqualified in 1976 for a overage member? Yep......he came back for several years after that incident to help the corps out in any way he could. He said he felt so bad he wanted to pay them back some how. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gellio Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 You can't compare what happened with SCV in 1989 with what happened with Bridgemen in 1977. Knowing you're breaking the rules (Bridgemen) and being the victims of fraud (SCV) are entirely different things. Think about it - if you can fool the US immigration officials then fooling a drum and bugle corps should be very easy. This could have happened to any corps, and may have. This may be one of the few times it was discovered. SCV did the right thing by booting the members immediately. They caught the mistake and they fixed it. How was SCV supposed to know their real ages? Come on! "Ignorance of the rules" hardly qualifies in this circumstance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BennyBassDrum Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 This thread has been done over & over. DCI has their stand, The Bridgemen has their stand and the people who caused the entire dilema have their own story. Please, let it die in piece-I think we've had enough........Benny 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.