Wayne writes: >I don't know anything official, but I've reconciled the decision in a >slightly different fashion. > >According to 14.3.3(a) (SATs), Latendresse had only three seasons to >compete. According to 12.2.3.2.4.1 (Major Junior A), one of those three >seasons is lost. > >Latendresse sat out the one season 12.2.3.2.4.1 requires and then had >two years remaining. The 1992-93 season is unaffected. > >Maybe that's not clear. Let's assume for the moment, that only >12.2.3.2.4.1 applies. Latendresse sits the required 1991-92 season and >has three years of eligibility left ... and can play starting in the >1992-93 season. > >Now let's add 14.3.2.1.1. This says he cannot practice for the 1st year >in residence. He didn't. > >Now let's add 14.3.3(a). This says he has only three seasons to >compete. The obvious intention is to restrict from 4 to 3 seasons. >Since he was already at 3 seasons, this rule lessens participation to 2 >seasons. Yup, I mostly agree that this is a possible interpretation. But here's where I have questions. 12.2.3.2.4.1 says, "...such an individual shall be denied at least the first year of intercollegiate athletics competition in the sport of ice hockey at the certifying institution and shall be charged with the loss of at least one season of eligibility in the sport of ice hockey." But by 14.3.2.1.1, wasn't he already ineligible to play in his first season as a partial qualifier? Meaning that therefore his first year of competition could not have been 1991-92, and he should have been "denied" 1992-93. I.e., how could he have been denied 1991-92, since there was no way he could have played anyway. This comes back to the question of concurrency, it seems. Your interpretation seems to bank on that being acceptable. I agree that it could be acceptable, just that I haven't seen anything to indicate one way or the other. If concurrency is not acceptable here, then it seems that he has been allowed to put off the application of the rule requiring him to sit a year for JrA, effectively until after his collegiate career has ended. I know of no other situation in which this has ever been allowed, nor do I find a rule which supports this determination. You also mentioned earlier what you saw as a difference between the JrA situation as being punitive and Prop48 as not punitive. I'm not sure I see where it matters. Both regulations deal with eligibility, and both caused him to lose a year. By 14.12.1, the rule (rules?) should have been applied immediately. HOWEVER, I note that "applying the rule immediately" certainly can be taken to mean that concurrency is acceptable here - especially whereas nothing says it is NOT acceptable. Again, my attempt is only to understand. One reason I chose to post this instead of reply by email, is that I hope the end result will be that everyone will understand exactly what happened. I am certain it will be used by some as another example of how the Maine athletic program is running rampant (or did). But I think that chances are that this is not such an example. >As reported by everyone in the Bangor/Orono area (I didn't see Boston >Globe article referred to by Neil), the NCAA reports Latendresse has >used all of his eligibility and no foul. This was the first I had heard of an NC$$ ruling in the matter. My impression is that the NC$$ must have agreed that 1991-92 covered both seasons of Latendresse's ineligibility. Something I began to suggest above and that I think should be reiterated, is that people are already beginning to criticize the Maine administration and Shawn Walsh (and I have had questions myself). But on the face of it, there were no violations committed. It sounds as if the NC$$ has accepted that everything was handled correctly. However... >Of course, Latendresse was fouled since Maine did not get an official >decision until a couple of weeks ago. October is hardly the month to >go looking for a hockey job ... especially in a year that the NHL isn't >playing. ...and this is the real problem. It would have been better for him had the situation been recognized much sooner so that he would have been prepared. Hopefully the strides Maine has made in improving its handling of these matters will mean that he'll be the last SA to have this happen to. I wish him the best. --- --- Mike Machnik [log in to unmask] Cabletron Systems, Inc. *HMM* 11/13/93 <<<<< Color Voice of the Merrimack Warriors (station TBA for 94-95) >>>>>