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) >>>>>