AREA-C 5A Marching Contest

[frhsband]

  quickwolf said:

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

[Xenon]

  frhsband said:

So in reading this that means "The Woodlands" bands shouldnt be dq'ed because they had an ineligble person in the band and should have only been "forefeited". Woodlands made it to state and couldnt play because of the area contest. I am guessing the rules that were written were not interpreted the same way they have been before in this instance. The rules state"

 

No, you didn't read that correctly.

 

The ineligible student for The Woodlands was an actual field player of the band, not a person running the soundboard. According to Richard Floyd's letter, this calls for instant forfeiture of the contests in which the student was an active participant.

 

Because The Woodlands could not advance to State because they had to forfeit their placement at the Area competition.

[frhsband]

  Xenon said:

No, you didn't read that correctly.

 

The ineligible student for The Woodlands was an actual field player of the band, not a person running the soundboard. According to Richard Floyd's letter, this calls for instant forfeiture of the contests in which the student was an active participant.

 

Because The Woodlands could not advance to State because they had to forfeit their placement at the Area competition.

 

I guess its an interpretation of the rules and how they (UIL) interprets them at the time. So from here on out any person can run the soundboard as they are not considered members of the band they are only "students fulfilling that role for the band." That tells me that anyone can run the soundboard according to Richard Floyd. So does that interpretation as well go for any person that isnt a member of the band that doesnt suit up can run anything in the pit or play an instrument from the side as they wouldnt be actual field team members as "It applies to the actual, in uniform, on the field team members." Also if it wasnt an issue why was their a rule written and why was their a reprimand? If he wasnt violating a rule there shouldnt have been a reprimand. Why do other band directors hurry to get away from the soundboard knowing its a rule but this one didnt?

 

I am not trying to argue and like I said I am not dissing Coppell as they were good. I dont like the way UIL interprets the rules to be what they want it to be for the time. It should be consistent and followed for all.

[TRUMPet]

  Quote

I dont like the way UIL interprets the rules to be what they want it to be for the time. It should be consistent and followed for all.

 

haha hince the controversy we need a UIL constitution.... reminds me of that little war between us and jolly king george ("We want a written constitution" )

[crazyjakeup]

they do have a constitution, a poorly written one, but a constitution none the less...

[takigan]

  frhsband said:

I guess its an interpretation of the rules and how they (UIL) interprets them at the time. So from here on out any person can run the soundboard as they are not considered members of the band they are only "students fulfilling that role for the band." That tells me that anyone can run the soundboard according to Richard Floyd.

 

No. It still says "eligible students". Meaning that the school could use any student member of the school they wanted, even if they aren't in the band. The soundboard role is just like a prop-mover role, the only difference is that it has to be operated by a student of the performing school.

 

I really don't know why such a vague rule exists....they should either have it to where a director can operate the sound board if they so choose, or just require the sound board member to be an active performer of the band and treat them the same way.

 

The Area board ruled there was no unfair advantage gained. I don't know how complex Coppell's sound setup is, but if it was complex enough to do something as small as increase and decrease volumes of performing members of the band, the band director thus had the capability to alter the music that was being produced by the kids in that show, and was thus performing with them. Did it give an obvious advantage that would have affected placement? No....but it was still an act that took place in ignorance and disregard for the established rules that was for the purposes of rectifying what could have become a disadvantage (I don't think the director would have jumped in and stayed in had he known his band wasn't in the running for State). Personally, I still call that an advantage.

 

When I think about disqualifying them I do think that's a little harsh because it demeans the work that the kids did, simply because of a technicality on part of their teacher....especially considering they still probably would have advanced, even if the director had not stepped in. However I do think a "reprimand" is too lean of a punishment, particularly if the reprimand isn't made well-known enough to make an example of him....If I were on the Area board, I would have allowed them to advance, but maybe suspended them from UIL activities the following year or possibly the following State contest.

 

I was at a Relay for Life event once. Some of the organizers of the event got a tug-of-war rope for the kids to have fun with during the event. The first tug-of-war contest that went on; one side of the rope was losing.....some parent (probably the parent of some kid on the losing side) decided to jump in and help pull. Some of the other parents watching saw this as unfair and jumped in on the other side...now their side was imbalanced and from there more parents jumped in, and from there everyone stormed the rope. The rope ended up snapping in 2 and nobody won. Some people just need to let go and let things go as they should and not try to go outside their bounds just because of an unfavorable turn of chance.

[frhsband]

  takigan said:

No. It still says "eligible students". Meaning that the school could use any student member of the school they wanted, even if they aren't in the band. The soundboard role is just like a prop-mover role, the only difference is that it has to be operated by a student of the performing school.

 

I really don't know why such a vague rule exists....they should either have it to where a director can operate the sound board if they so choose, or just require the sound board member to be an active performer of the band and treat them the same way.

 

The Area board ruled there was no unfair advantage gained. I don't know how complex Coppell's sound setup is, but if it was complex enough to do something as small as increase and decrease volumes of performing members of the band, the band director thus had the capability to alter the music that was being produced by the kids in that show, and was thus performing with them. Did it give an obvious advantage that would have affected placement? No....but it was still an act that took place in ignorance and disregard for the established rules that was for the purposes of rectifying what could have become a disadvantage (I don't think the director would have jumped in and stayed in had he known his band wasn't in the running for State). Personally, I still call that an advantage.

 

When I think about disqualifying them I do think that's a little harsh because it demeans the work that the kids did, simply because of a technicality on part of their teacher....especially considering they still probably would have advanced, even if the director had not stepped in. However I do think a "reprimand" is too lean of a punishment, particularly if the reprimand isn't made well-known enough to make an example of him....If I were on the Area board, I would have allowed them to advance, but maybe suspended them from UIL activities the following year or possibly the following State contest.

 

I was at a Relay for Life event once. Some of the organizers of the event got a tug-of-war rope for the kids to have fun with during the event. The first tug-of-war contest that went on; one side of the rope was losing.....some parent (probably the parent of some kid on the losing side) decided to jump in and help pull. Some of the other parents watching saw this as unfair and jumped in on the other side...now their side was imbalanced and from there more parents jumped in, and from there everyone stormed the rope. The rope ended up snapping in 2 and nobody won. Some people just need to let go and let things go as they should and not try to go outside their bounds just because of an unfavorable turn of chance.

 

I dont know if it is a matter of being a vague rule or not the rules states "eligible student" can only run the boards so thats pretty straight cut. But Mr Floyd had his own interpretation that they dont require "people that move equipment, set props, pick up flags, run audio be listed on the Form One as members of the

competing organization. And, in fact with the exception of the audio board many of these people are actually parents or student volunteers. Thus we do not consider the person running the sound board as being a contestant. He/she is simply a student who is fulfilling that role for the band. They may or may not be a member of the band." But the rule states that "A. All equipment, such as mixers, sound boards, etc. must be operated by eligible students.

That is a pretty straight cut rule when I read it. But sounds like he interprets the way he wanted but time for letters to be written so nothing happens like this again and kids/directors that do follow the rules dont suffer. It wasnt a matter either that the director "didnt know" as they have to read and sign a form (notarized) that is on the UIL site stating they know the rules and abide by them and I dont think that logic flies if you are pulled over and violate the law either.

 

Some of that form states:

 

I have read and am familiar with, and will continue to read the UIL Constitution and Contest Rules, activity

manuals and other League bulletins and will keep myself informed as updated editions are received, in the

contests for which I am responsible, throughout my tenure with this school district.

 

I understand the contents of the UIL Constitution and Contest Rules and activity manuals in my activity(s) as

they are applicable to me, to the students in my charge, to the school to which I am assigned, and to the

school district.

 

I am giving this professional acknowledgement to acknowledge the above-stated facts and the professional

responsibility I freely accept with respect to my actions or omissions in activities of the UIL, and to assure my

students, the parents of my students, my school, my school district, and UIL officers: (a) that I am aware of

those actions and omissions that constitute violations of the UIL Constitution and Contest Rules; (

that I

am aware of the ranges of possible penalties that may be imposed following a violation; and © that I am

aware of the persons against whom the UIL may impose penalties.

 

In particular, I acknowledge my understanding of the penalties that may be assessed against me should I fail to

comply with the provisions of the UIL Constitution and Contest Rules.

I acknowledge that I am making this sworn statement to be filed with my superintendent.

 

This is a form that is signed and notarized on file but this is neither here not there now as the damage was done. I just wonder how much value that director placed on integrity evidently third place.