AREA-C 5A Marching Contest

[jp0621]

ok.

 

this seriously needs to be dropped.

 

again, UIL has made their decision, and a lot of people are going to get sick of this.

 

yes, i am from coppell, and i do know all about what happened, but this issue is really getting tiring right about now.

[crazyjakeup]

lol... am i wrong???

[takigan]

  jp0621 said:

i agree with the fact we need to move on.

 

its seriously getting tiring.

 

UIL made their decision, and that's all that there is.

 

I disagree. The decision with Coppell has been made and there's nothing we can do to change that, but the less action we take concerning the ruling the less serious it seems. People affiliated with UIL read this board....if it is perceived that this is not a big deal and only 1 or 2 people post attacking it and the rest are shut up by the restlessness of the rest of the community, it honestly won't be seen as a big deal and schools in the future will suffer.

 

This, of course, is all right and fine to the people who don't see this as a serious issue (which is fine because it's their opinion) and they're mainly the ones urging the conversation to move on (the rest being people who don't care either way). But I urge the people who feel strongly about this to let your voice be heard and don't feel discouraged by the rest of the community who are growing restless with this discussion.

[jp0621]

im not arguing with the rules at all.

 

its just the fact that people are still talking about this.

 

-_____-

[Steeldrum]

OK, let me chime in on this. Stating that a group "cheated" is a serious accusation and a detriment to a fine program, and just makes you look like a bitter sour-grapes band student. There is a major difference in someone cheating, say by using ineligible students, playing recorded horns through the PA or other obvious rule violations by intent, versus an individual who in the heat of the competition stepped up to the board to fix whatever it was that was wrong. I don't think I've seen anywhere on this board stated what exactly this individual did. Do any of you really know or are you simply frustrated that your band didn't make it? As others have stated, Coppell won first and advanced due the strength of their performance with absolutely no assistance by the "sound board incident".

 

Saying that they should be DQ'd for some slight rule infraction is also wrong. Now I don't know what the rules state precisely but would be very surprised if they say "if you violate any rule whatsoever you will be automatically DQ'd". I'm sure what the judges and area director did was assess the violation in the spirit of the rule and determined it to be a non-event, for both Coppell and Duncanville, and moved on.

 

That is what you should do, move on.

[sax]

The argument is not over the scores its simply over the fact that they clearly broke a rule(caught on tape) and just because they're a big name band nothing happens. One of their directors ran the soundboard the entire show

"(A) All equipment, such as sound mixers, and soundboards, etc. must be operated by eligible students."

The rule is clearly stated and no matter what band it is everyone should have to abide by the rules. I do agree that Coppell was amazing at area but that shouldn't exempt them from the rules.

If a band had gone over 8 min they would have been immediatly dq so shouldn't a band who broke a rule be immediatly dq

[jp0621]

sax, i do have to disagree with the fact "big name" bands get by with stuff.

 

and think about it, it was only a first time offense.

 

i mean, a DQ the for the first offense is a bit serious. and honestly, the soundboard probably wouldnt even be a detriment to our show.

 

but UIL did reprimand us (to what i've heard, but i dont know much about that, so ill keep it to its what i've heard.)

 

and also sax, UIL can decide what punishment is fitting for the band.

 

http://www.uil.utexas.edu/policy/constitution/08_09subE.pdf

Edited October 29, 2008 by jp0621

[ecoff807]

  sax said:

The argument is not over the scores its simply over the fact that they clearly broke a rule(caught on tape) and just because they're a big name band nothing happens. One of their directors ran the soundboard the entire show

"(A) All equipment, such as sound mixers, and soundboards, etc. must be operated by eligible students."

The rule is clearly stated and no matter what band it is everyone should have to abide by the rules. I do agree that Coppell was amazing at area but that shouldn't exempt them from the rules.

If a band had gone over 8 min they would have been immediatly dq so shouldn't a band who broke a rule be immediatly dq

 

okay...the directors did not have any intent on cheating or anything...obviously if they had known about the rule they would not have done it...the UIL board has made their decision and by arguing and being bitter about the whole situation, you are in turn questioning and insulting the representatives that made that decision that day. you are fully entitled to your opinion but seriously, if you do not personally know the directors or the members of the band, then let it go...it happened and it is over with

[aaron067]

This is ridiculous. Many of you are throwing accusations and judgments around without (a) even knowing all the facts and (b ) knowing the rules. So, without further ado, here are the rules in the question:

 

 

  Quote

© FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT PERSONNEL. The penalties that may be imposed by the State Executive Committee on school district personnel found to have caused violations of ethics, sportsmanship codes, eligibility rules, contest plans or reporting practices are: reprimand, public reprimand or suspension from participation in UIL activities.

(1) Covered Personnel. School district personnel covered by this section are all UIL contest sponsors.

(2) Reprimand. Following a protest or report of violation the State Executive Committee may issue a reprimand to a covered school district employee if it finds the employeeviolated the UIL Constitution and Contest Rules.

(3) Public Reprimand. The State Executive Committee may issue an order of public reprimand to a covered school district employee it finds to have caused violations of ethics, sportsmanship codes, eligibility rules, contest plans or reporting practices. A public reprimand may include a probationary period of one to three years, and may include any reasonable questions, which, if not fulfilled, may result in a subsequent order of suspension.

(4) Suspension. The State Executive Committee may issue an order of suspension to a covered school district employee suspending the employee from participating in any germane contest plan for a period of one day to three years. Suspension shall include refraining from coaching at least one contest. It may include suspension from other activities, such as attending the germane contest, scouting, practicing with the athlete(s), or any other reasonable condition the State Executive Committee chooses to impose.

(5) Penalty Criteria. In determining penalties to be imposed under this section, the State Executive Committee shall give due consideration to the intentions of the employee at the time of the violation as well as at the time of the hearing; the severity of the

violations; the benefits gained and the detriments incurred, both to the contestants involved and to the UIL as a whole; the penalties imposed under similar circumstances; and the relative seriousness with which the UIL members consider the violations.

(6) Decision. The State Executive Committee

[ecoff807]

  aaron067 said:

This is ridiculous. Many of you are throwing accusations and judgments around without (a) even knowing all the facts and (b ) knowing the rules. So, without further ado, here are the rules in the question:

 

 

 

 

In both cases a rule was broken by a director, and there are clearly no provisions in the UIL contest rules for disqualifying a group because a sponsor broke a rule. The most severe penalty that could be placed on either group is that the director in question be suspended from the following contest. For all we know, the student who normally runs the board could have been in the hospital with pneumonia. I'm simply tired of people casting stones without knowing the full extent of the situation. If you'd like to argue that the band was the entity breaking the rule, here is this little tidbit from a previous part of Section 27:

 

 

 

Clearly there were no violations of any of these items. I think we can safely say neither school was violating the ethics or sportsmanship codes, specifically. Anyone wanting to argue that particular point is being foolish and obstinate.

 

Also, if you take a look at the classification of violations you'll also see that neither director would be considered to have broken any major rules. Categories A and B are the primary points of concern for UIL, and, obviously, this situation falls under neither of these areas.

 

 

 

Finally, if you're still in the mood for sour grapes, it's ultimately up to the State Marching Band Contest committee or the Executive Board, both of which have ruled that neither participating band broke the rules with malicious or questionable intent. This is their prerogative, as per this rule:

 

 

As I said, it's the directors in question who would be punished if a punishment is deemed necessary. All of this immature bantering and calling for disqualification is totally off base and, frankly, quite lacking in class. It's a shame for the programs you're connected to because, as a whole, they present themselves as very respectable organizations.

 

In a different vein, it is my understanding (though not first hand knowledge) that there is precedent for a simple reprimand in this instance. Over the past two years 8-10 bands have been reprimanded for breaking this particular rule, so it's hardly difficult to understand why Duncanville and Coppell would be treated any differently than any other group in the same situation. With that being said, I firmly believe that the same thing would have happened had it been Rowlette, Sachse, Richardson, or Lake Highlands with the issue. The rules, as vague as they are in punishment and even violation, are in favor of the ruling that was made. Can it now be laid to rest?

 

 

thank you whoever you are for clearing that up

[BigBari]

As I said, it's the directors in question who would be punished if a punishment is deemed necessary. All of this immature bantering and calling for disqualification is totally off base and, frankly, quite lacking in class. It's a shame for the programs you're connected to because, as a whole, they present themselves as very respectable organizations.

 

In a different vein, it is my understanding (though not first hand knowledge) that there is precedent for a simple reprimand in this instance. Over the past two years 8-10 bands have been reprimanded for breaking this particular rule, so it's hardly difficult to understand why Duncanville and Coppell would be treated any differently than any other group in the same situation. With that being said, I firmly believe that the same thing would have happened had it been Rowlette, Sachse, Richardson, or Lake Highlands with the issue. The rules, as vague as they are in punishment and even violation, are in favor of the ruling that was made. Can it now be laid to rest?

 

Thank you for you maturity in this matter.

[crazyjakeup]

Okay, wanna talk about maturity, I haven

[crazyjakeup]

woops... i forgot that a capital "B" and a ")" make a emoticon... there sould have been only one ...

[ImWithTheBand87]

 

• Sorry, first post here. Apologies in advance for any formatting issues...
   
  First, I'd like to clarify one point. No one is trying to punish Coppell or Duncanville by having them removed from the state contest. The Rowlett protest was not to get anyone disqualified. It was a request to have Rowlett included as a 4^th state qualifier since there were rules violations by two of the bands that qualified. However, that protest was denied by the Area committee, so we can drop that portion of the discussion. Best of luck to Coppell, Duncanville, & Berkner at the State Marching Contest. They will represent Area C very well.
  

However, I think we still have a situation here that merits discussion. I've seen lots of posts that said that the Coppell kids worked really hard & should not be punished because the rule wasn't followed, but what about the Rowlett/Sachse/Lake Highlands/Richardson kids who also worked really hard and followed the rules?

 

The biggest issue that I have with it is the lack of accountability & consequences for violation of the rule and the UIL's handling of it (a private reprimand?). I've seen numerous posts saying that breaking the rule doesn't matter. The band was great on the field. If that's the case, then why do we bother having rules at all if we aren't going to enforce them? Previous posts have made it clear that Coppell used an assistant director to run their sound board at both Region and Area. Had they known the rule, I'm sure they wouldn't have done so, but ignorance of the rule isn't an excuse to break it & exempt you from the consequences.

 

I think one of the problems is that there is currently no linkage between the rules in question & the punishment for breaking them. The rules in this section merely refer one to sections 27 & 29 which state that anything from a private reprimand up to a multi-year suspension are possible sanctions. How are contest administrators supposed to apply those rules during the heat of competition if there are not clear guidelines for which punishment applies to each rule violation? It's clear what happens when a timing rule is violated. Not so in this case. It's also not clear to me why this rule & any associated sanctions would apply only to the director in question when the violation has a direct impact on the overall performance.

 

As a hypothetical, what if a team was playing in a 5A playoff game & suited up a player that was ineligible. Let's say that player plays on two special teams plays only & has no impact on the outcome of the game, but his team wins. The next week it is determined that he was ineligible. No question about it that the team would be forced to forfeit with the losing team moving on (if the situation were discovered in time).

 

In this case, an adult had direct participation in the production of the show. Seems to me that has much more of an impact on the outcome than the football player did in the hypothetical. The rules are there for a reason, & they need to be followed. Also, what happens when a rule is broken needs to be more clearly spelled out, & IMHO the UIL needs to address this prior to future competitions.

[aaron067]

I didn't make my last post as part of a debate. The portions of the rules that I posted are the rules in question. So, while the concept of penalization is extremely nebulous (as we all agree), the section that deals specifically with a director's transgression says nothing about penalizing the group as a whole (the parts you quoted are not from that portion of section 27).

 

To open it up for debate, let me say this. The rules governing electronic sound equipment are fairly new, so what happened with bands before these rules were instituted? Have students always worked the mixer? If not, who did? Was the issue of adults working the equipment an issue then? If not, why are so many people (not necessarily on txbands) making such a huge deal out of this? If it were a lesser known band (and director) who had been reprimanded, I believe the arguments would be totally different. No one would have ever said it's based solely on director reputation or ego. In fact, of the 9 or 10 similar violations, I don't recall any similar debates... A comparison for you: why can a director conduct in some situations but not run a soundboard? Is conducting not a direct impact on the show? Even more so than running a soundboard, I would say.

 

On the subject of rules, you would be surprised by how many minor infractions take place every year. They often go unnoticed, but those that are witnessed usually result in a simple reprimand. Obviously, it's not like there are hordes of bands who violate the rules, but accidents do happen. It's like breaking a rule in school. How many times have you seen someone suspended or expelled for breaking a dress code just once? I never have, and I've been through 12 years of public school, worked in public schools through college and am now teaching.

 

The rule and situations in question cannot be judged based purely on fact. The rules themselves leave room for this. I think we all feel comfortable saying that neither Coppell nor Duncanville depend on electronics for their show to be effective and successful. If they did, then all of this debating would definitely have a basis for legitimacy. In these cases, however, the people making the decisions realize that neither group broke a rule on purpose nor did the violations affect the outcome of the contest. Hence, the spirit of the rules were not broken and neither was the contest invalidated.

 

Yes, I realize some of you will say it's in the eye of the beholder, and, yes, we all agree that some more detail should be added to the rules. However, many rules in our society are rarely black and white. Even federal and state laws are left open to interpretation by the judiciary and the context of a violation is usually left to the interpretation of a jury. Do you really think that a marching band contest infraction should be penalized more stringently than a misdemeanor or felony if we consider context? I think not. A reprimand will ensure that neither band makes the same mistake again.

 

On the subject of fairness, perhaps Rowlett should have been allowed to advance. I don't know, as I wasn't there. I do have a question for all of you who feel penalization should be strictly enforced. If Rowlett were allowed to continue, would you really still be arguing that the rules should be upheld, or would you be satisfied? Perhaps you will say, it doesn't matter. Rules are rules. Still, I can't help but wonder.

Edited October 30, 2008 by aaron067

[ndnorris7]

Coppell was allowed to advance and, in my opinion, it was the correct decision. Rules are rules. They were reprimanded. That's their punishment. That's the same punishment that has been handed out for years. I don't understand why this issue is still being brought up. Not every crime has the ultimate punishment. Smaller crimes have smaller consequences. That's just how life works.

[BigBari]

  crazyjakeup said:

P.S. Nobody wants the students from Coppell to be punished for what the director did. That would be wrong. But I also don't want the students from other band programs to be punished for following the rules. Somehow all parties need to come to a fair agreement before this happens again

[sax5warrior]

Admin, lock this thread, NOW.

[ImWithTheBand87]

  aaron067 said:

I didn't make my last post as part of a debate. The portions of the rules that I posted are the rules in question. So, while the concept of penalization is extremely nebulous (as we all agree), the section that deals specifically with a director's transgression says nothing about penalizing the group as a whole (the parts you quoted are not from that portion of section 27).

You are correct. I had lumped it all together. I think we all agree that the rules are very nebulous. It's hard for me to rationalize in this kind of situation why sanctions should be limited to the director only since it directly deals with the production of the show. It's a student competition, & the rules are clear that students are supposed to run it. That's why applying the sanctions to the director don't make a lot of sense to me, & the Area folks running the competition appeared to have some difficulty administering the rules as they stand today since the state officials had to be involved to figure out what to do.

 

To open it up for debate, let me say this. The rules governing electronic sound equipment are fairly new, so what happened with bands before these rules were instituted? Have students always worked the mixer? If not, who did? Was the issue of adults working the equipment an issue then? If not, why are so many people (not necessarily on txbands) making such a huge deal out of this? If it were a lesser known band (and director) who had been reprimanded, I believe the arguments would be totally different. No one would have ever said it's based solely on director reputation or ego. In fact, of the 9 or 10 similar violations, I don't recall any similar debates... A comparison for you: why can a director conduct in some situations but not run a soundboard? Is conducting not a direct impact on the show? Even more so than running a soundboard, I would say.

I don't know the answers on what happened before, but how is that really relevant to the discussion? It must've been an issue, otherwise a rule would not have been written for it. Regardless, the rule is in place now & has been for a few years. The competition this year was subject to those rules. Agree with you that conducting is certainly a direct impact on the show, but why is that relevant here? If there are rules that say a director can conduct in some situations, then it's legal in those situations until the rule changes. In this case, the rule in question is very clear. However, the action to take when it is broken is not clear at all & IMHO do not fit the situation very well. That is why I would advocate having the UIL revisit & provide some clarity.

 

On the subject of rules, you would be surprised by how many minor infractions take place every year. They often go unnoticed, but those that are witnessed usually result in a simple reprimand. Obviously, it's not like there are hordes of bands who violate the rules, but accidents do happen. It's like breaking a rule in school. How many times have you seen someone suspended or expelled for breaking a dress code just once? I never have, and I've been through 12 years of public school, worked in public schools through college and am now teaching.

Oh, I'm certain that violations occur quite a bit. The question I have here is what is considered a minor infraction. Again, it's a student competition & students are supposed to run the equipment. Just my opinion, but that seems more than minor to me.

 

The rule and situations in question cannot be judged based purely on fact. The rules themselves leave room for this. I think we all feel comfortable saying that neither Coppell nor Duncanville depend on electronics for their show to be effective and successful. If they did, then all of this debating would definitely have a basis for legitimacy. In these cases, however, the people making the decisions realize that neither group broke a rule on purpose nor did the violations affect the outcome of the contest. Hence, the spirit of the rules were not broken and neither was the contest invalidated.

If they don't impact their show, then why did they use them? They are certainly seeking some benefit from it or they wouldn't go to the trouble. Again, ignorance of the rule isn't an excuse in my mind. In Duncanville's case where they had a problem with the board & the director told the student which buttons to push, I agree that the spirit of the rules were not really broken. However, in Coppell's case (where it was done without knowledge of the rule, not with any sort of malicious intent), I would disagree with you and say it does violate the spirit of the rule since they've had a director running the board this season (per earlier posts on this thread).

 

Yes, I realize some of you will say it's in the eye of the beholder, and, yes, we all agree that some more detail should be added to the rules. However, many rules in our society are rarely black and white. Even federal and state laws are left open to interpretation by the judiciary and the context of a violation is usually left to the interpretation of a jury. Do you really think that a marching band contest infraction should be penalized more stringently than a misdemeanor or felony if we consider context? I think not. A reprimand will ensure that neither band makes the same mistake again.

I agree that the reprimand is appropriate in this situation because of the current state of the rules, but what I'm debating is that in the long-term this rule (& perhaps others) need to be revisited to determine how to apply them. I still go back to the fact that it's a student competition & students are supposed to execute the show, including any electronic equipment. I'm open to some subjectivity. We have 2 case studies in this one example. One seems more clear cut to me than the other.

 

On the subject of fairness, perhaps Rowlett should have been allowed to advance. I don't know, as I wasn't there. I do have a question for all of you who feel penalization should be strictly enforced. If Rowlett were allowed to continue, would you really still be arguing that the rules should be upheld, or would you be satisfied? Perhaps you will say, it doesn't matter. Rules are rules. Still, I can't help but wonder.

I think if we don't have these kinds of discussions/civilized debate when there is ambiguity, we just set ourselves up to have the same conversations when it happens next time. Nothing wrong with trying to improve.

[morebueno]

crazyjake just shut up... stop being bitter. Maybe if rowlett wouldnt have had an ego thinking they would get first again in finals they might have made state.

 

you cant blame it all on a little sound board or somehting done by the director. Would you rather see somehting bad happen with the sound board and the crowd LAUGH at all the kids who put in all the EFFORT and HARD WORK all season? No... he simply fixed the issue and was done.

 

Its not all about winning, and it would show more class to Rowlett if you just shut up and let it be. You cant change peoples minds and its done. its over... rowlett will try again in 2 years

[trumpetchick0607]

  morebueno said:

crazyjake just shut up... stop being bitter. Maybe if rowlett wouldnt have had an ego thinking they would get first again in finals they might have made state.

 

you cant blame it all on a little sound board or somehting done by the director. Would you rather see somehting bad happen with the sound board and the crowd LAUGH at all the kids who put in all the EFFORT and HARD WORK all season? No... he simply fixed the issue and was done.

 

Its not all about winning, and it would show more class to Rowlett if you just shut up and let it be. You cant change peoples minds and its done. its over... rowlett will try again in 2 years

 

you are ignorent..

thats all i have to say on that matter.

[treblemaker]

Can't we all just get along?

[morebueno]

Can I just say something to cheer everyone up? look at coppell.. 3rd in the state. Im glad they advanced, what a great way to show off a band program. Now arent you happy they got to go vs. the whole 'they broke the rules'

[quickwolf]

I took a few minutes to write Richard Floyd, the director of the UIL about the soundboard controversy. This is his response. For those who neglected to get the facts right and misinterpreted the rules, please take this as a lesson learned that if you do not understand the rules completely, go to someone who does...and sometimes the man at the top is the best source since it is his job.

 

________________________________________________________________

 

I certainly understand your assumption that rules were not followed in this

incident and that the UIL should be expected to do so. In this case I fear

much of the public is looking at the wrong rule. The

[kdnblue142]

Thank you very much!!!

 

Enough said.