28e. CYCC Qualification rules - Barron amendment

[Bob Gillanders]

Lyle or Michael, please post your motion here.

[Bob Gillanders]

This new thread replaces #28 in order to separate the various amendment proposals. This thread is for the original motion 2011-C. See thread 28 for prior discussions.


28. Motion 2011-C: (moved by Michael Barron, seconded by Anna Jin)

To amend section 1003 of the CFC Handbook:
"1003. Players: {Motion 2009-13 2009 AGM Nadeau/Lavin}
The following players shall be eligible to participate in each Youth Tournament provided they comply with the formal entry requirements of Article 1007:
(a) The qualifiers from that year's YCC's.
(b) The qualifiers from the CYCC to the WYCC of the previous year.
(c) The highest rating of each age category {open & female} of each Province {as of May 1st prior to the CYCC}
(d) The host organizer may nominate three players for each category from the host location. {Amendment of Original Motion Barron/Langer}"

by adding the clause:

"(e) The former CYCC champions"

[Stuart Brammall]

Can someone clarify what this means... how is (e) different from (b).
Is it the top 3 or just the top 1?
Does this mean all the winners back to the beginning of time, or just last year?
(I guess the beginning of time in this case would be at most 13 or 14 years)

[Bob Gillanders]

Stuart,

Michael answered this on thread 28.

(b) 1st, 2nd, 3rd place finishers at last years CYCC.

(e) means 1st place champions at CYCC for all prior years.

Some overlap of players.

[Lyle Craver]

Since when is it a problem if a candidate qualifies under more than one regulation?

[Stuart Brammall]

Since when is it a problem if a candidate qualifies under more than one regulation?

I don't think anyone said it was a problem. I was simply not clear on the interpretation of this motion.

[Fred McKim]

I think this amendment would be clearer by using the word "All" instead of "The" to begin the sentence

[Ellen Nadeau]

I cannot say I am much in favour of this motion.
Conceivably a U8 champion can disappear for 6 years and come back to CYCC without any other basis than that he had won a long time ago. We allow for previous winners and top 3 to come back the next year but leaving it open to potentially a 10 year gap(7 -17) is too much.

[Stuart Brammall]

I cannot say I am much in favour of this motion.
Conceivably a U8 champion can disappear for 6 years and come back to CYCC without any other basis than that he had won a long time ago. We allow for previous winners and top 3 to come back the next year but leaving it open to potentially a 10 year gap(7 -17) is too much.

Not to offend, but the former U8 champion would likely be very close to the player qualified from NOSCC. :#

[Valer Eugen Demian]

I cannot say I am much in favour of this motion.
Conceivably a U8 champion can disappear for 6 years and come back to CYCC without any other basis than that he had won a long time ago. We allow for previous winners and top 3 to come back the next year but leaving it open to potentially a 10 year gap(7 -17) is too much.

It is pretty simple to fix this: clause "(e) The former CYCC champions" should be limited to the previous year!