RRRC Competitions Committee Notes – 5/1/17

The Red River Competitions Committee will now be releasing their monthly committee call minutes and notes. View all of the archived RRRC minutes** or read on for the most recent:

    1. Opening of the meeting and Roll Call (A.Sharpley)
      1. Sharpley
      2. Tate
      3. Young
      4. Kolberg
      5. Butch
      6. Turner
      7. Kurylas
      8. Watson
      9. Iker
      10. Hughes
    2. Approval of the Agenda (A.Sharpley)
      1. No objections to the agenda, APPROVED
    3. Approval of previous meeting minutes (W.Young)
      1. Approved by email and posted to TRU website on 3/22/17
    4. TRU update (K.Tate, W.Young)
      1. Forfeits
        1. 12/3 Euless forfeit – http://usarugbystats.com/competition/459/match/11245 – INELIGIBLE PLAYER
        2. 1/7 Dogfish forfeit – http://usarugbystats.com/competition/463/match/11065
        3. 1/14 Fort Worth forfeit – http://usarugbystats.com/competition/459/match/11259  
        4. 1/21 HARC d1b forfeit – http://usarugbystats.com/competition/458/match/11300
        5. 1/28 Alliance forfeit – http://usarugbystats.com/competition/461/match/11088 – INELIGIBLE PLAYER
        6. 2/4 Quins d1b forfeit – http://usarugbystats.com/competition/458/match/11305
        7. 3/4 Arrows forfeit – http://usarugbystats.com/competition/462/match/11120
        8. 3/11 HARC d1b forfeit – http://usarugbystats.com/competition/458/match/11312
        9. 3/18 Quins d1b forfeit – http://usarugbystats.com/competition/458/match/11313
        10. 4/8 Euless forfeit – http://usarugbystats.com/competition/459/match/11291
        11. 4/9 HARC d1b forfeit – http://usarugbystats.com/competition/458/match/11320
        12. 4/22 Euless forfeit – http://usarugbystats.com/competition/459/match/11293  
        13. 4/22 Quins d1b forfeit – http://usarugbystats.com/competition/458/match/11322
        14. 4/22 Corpus Dogfish forfeit – http://usarugbystats.com/competition/463/match/11152
        15. 4/29 HARC d1b forfeit – http://usarugbystats.com/competition/458/match/11325
        16. 4/29 Diablos forfeit – http://usarugbystats.com/competition/461/match/11058
          1. Tate: 16 forfeits this year, major issue. We are fining teams according to the TRU Operating Procedures. If the clubs don’t pay they will be deemed not in good standing and they won’t be eligible to compete next year. Also, anyone who forfeits more than two matches are automatically relegated. This will bring a variety of challenges to how we view these forfeits and divisional alignments.
      2. CMS
        1. Tate: We are looking pretty good, a couple from Euless and one from Alliance are missing. I went ahead and had Wendy input scores for any that were missing so we had updated point differentials in case of ties and such.
        2. Sharpley: Believe it or not I’m with Ron, it’s not Red River’s responsibility to set fines or punishment but it’s just too easy for clubs to forfeit. There is not much deterrent. I would encourage the TRU Board to take a hard look if the punishment fits the crime.
        3. Turner: I have a question on that, why would playing an ineligible player result in a heavier fine than a no show forfeit? At least the match was played, in the case of the no show forfeit the club who wanted to play suffers more.
        4. Tate: I can’t speak to the current fine structure, I don’t know how long it’s been written. I’ve asked Wendy to put this on the agenda for the next TRU Board call. We didn’t want to change the policy mid season. The only reason I can think of why an ineligible player is more, I can only see that it is perceived as cheating.
        5. Kolberg: Kirk, have you talked to the teams and asked them specifically why they are forfeiting?
        6. Tate: Not all of them, but some of them. I’ve talked to HARC and Quins as well as Dogfish. I would say that someone from the TRU Board has talked to these clubs. Otis in particular has talked to his D3 clubs as he has a very close relationship.
        7. Kolberg: We need to go to these teams and ask the reason. We need to dig deeper and see how they made an effort to make it happen? I’ll raise my hand on this thing and contact these teams.
        8. Watson: I find it’s most often the attitude of the administration. If they don’t think they are going to win, they will pay the fine. We’ve got to stop forfeits!
        9. Turner: I have two recommendations, what if for 7s we held the individual players accountable? If a club folds, do we allow those players to just move to another club? Second suggestion is that when we accept new clubs that they build in a culture of “no forfeits”.
        10. Kolberg: We did this in the beginning of the year, we bent over backwards to allow HEB to transfer players to the Quins. I had lunch with John Dale and they only had five guys show up from HEB. It’s a completely different culture that is hard to address.
        11. Young: I think that this plainly speaks that we have to have a D4. We can’t allow the teams to just join without showing that they are actually a team.
        12. Sharpley: This isn’t quite our responsibility as the RRRC but I would like to recommend to the TRU that forfeits aren’t considered an administrative function, but more of a disciplinary sanction. I don’t know what the solution is but teams aren’t taking it seriously enough.
        13. Tate: As I said, it’s already on the TRU agenda for the next call, we aren’t ignoring the problem but we won’t change the rules in the middle of the game. We’ve also already talked about new criteria for new clubs and those policies are being talked about.
        14. Kolberg: Didn’t it used to be that if you forfeited, you had to visit that opponent twice? You lost the home game.
        15. Tate: The RRRC can do that if we want, that is under our purview
        16. Sharpley: This has been good discussion and we know that the TRU has it on their agenda.
    5. TRRA Report (B.Neuenschwander)
      1. Butch: Big weekend coming up we are very confident that we have everything covered for Tulsa. We have one of the top performance reviewers attending the event, Calum Pender. After this we shift to 7s and we will have our summer AGM on June 17th and new leadership will be nominated.
    6. RRRC Playoffs in Tulsa (W.Young, L.Turner)
      1. D1M: Huns 1, Blacks 2 (USAR play-in match May 6)
      2. D2M: HURT 1, Little Rock 2, Austin Blacks 3, Tulsa 4
        1. Per policy we don’t play teams from the same conference in a SF
      3. D3M: Lone Star 1, San Marcos 2, HURT III 3, Shreveport 4
        1. Per policy we don’t play teams from the same conference in a SF
      4. D1W: Austin Valkyries 1, HARC 2, Dallas Harlequins 3, Little Rock 4
      5. D2W: Austin Valkyries II 1, Tulsa 2, Griffins 3, DARC 4
        1. Sharpley: Can we agree on this order of finish and matchups?
          1. Tate: Yes
          2. Young: Yes
          3. Kolberg: Yes
          4. Butch: Yes
          5. Turner: Yes
          6. Kurylas: Yes
          7. Watson: Yes
          8. Iker: Yes
          9. Hughes: Yes
          10. Sharpley: Yes
      6. Schedule:
        1. Young: Red is live streamed and yellow is tape delay.
        2. Tate: I move that we approve.
        3. Watson: Second.
          1. Tate: Yes
          2. Young: Yes
          3. Kolberg: Yes
          4. Butch: Yes
          5. Turner: Yes
          6. Kurylas: Yes
          7. Watson: Yes
          8. Iker: Yes
          9. Hughes: Yes
          10. Sharpley: Yes
      7. Match Commissioner
        1. Young: I had on my notes that the RRRC needs to appoint a match commissioner. Most of us that will be there will be associated with a team.
        2. Iker: I am not associated with any team and I will be there.
        3. Sharpley: Excellent, any objections to Holly Iker as Match Commissioner? NONE. APPROVED.
          1. Turner: No objection but curious about what those responsibilities are?
          2. Sharpley: Resolving disputes and eligibility mainly. I’ll put together a document from USAR and share with the committee.
      8. Host (Tulsa)
        1. Sharpley: Any news or information about the event this weekend?
        2. Turner: The weather is supposed to be perfect on the weekend.
        3. Young: We’re hoping to use fields 1-4: http://mohawksoccercomplex.com/upload/image/Mohawk%20Sports%20Complex.jpg. Field 4 will be the main pitch and Field 1 is warmup.
        4. Sharpley: Do we have a check-in schedule and somewhere to do that?
        5. Young: I send out a welcome packet that includes all those details and I’ll be working on that tonight. Check-in should be at the fields on Saturday morning.
    7. New business
      1. Next year’s competitive structures
        1. Sharpley: So we know that things have got to change as we have major issues with our men’s divisional alignments. The ad-hoc committee has had some offline discussions and an open discussion.
        2. Tate: Yes, we are trying to put together a “scorecard” that looks at all aspects of having a club to try and put together profiles for our divisional alignments.
      2. RRRC 7s – Confirm Venues
        1. 6/17 – Austin (Bloodfest)
        2. 6/24 – Norman, OK
        3. 7/8 – Bay Area (Space City 7s)
        4. 7/22 – Fort Worth, TX
          1. Sharpley: That is the 7s proposal for locations, who seconds?
            1. Watson: Second
              1. Tate: Yes
              2. Young: Yes
              3. Kolberg: Yes
              4. Butch: Yes
              5. Turner: Yes
              6. Kurylas: Yes
              7. Watson: Yes
              8. Iker: Yes
              9. Hughes: Yes
              10. Sharpley: Yes
                1. APPROVED
      3. Absent Members
        1. Sharpley: Corrigan has missed a bunch and Keuppens has missed some as well. I don’t know what the process is but we should inform these two members that they need to make the meetings or they will be replaced.
        2. Tate: We should note that there is a distinction in these, Keuppens is appointed while Corrigan was an elected representative. We are coming up on the end of our cycle and Corrigan’s position would be up for re-election. We would be well within our rights to ask for a confirmation from each of them that they would like to continue.
      4. Congress Meeting (Watson)
        1. Watson: We have another Congress meeting this summer and USAR is going to request a dues increase. I wanted to let the members know as soon as possible.
        2. Sharpley: This isn’t a RRRC issue…perhaps this would be better handled with the TRU?
        3. Tate: Yes, please send Wendy and I the various proposals and we will review. We can also post to the website and push it out to all the clubs as we’ve done for you in the past.
    8. Close of the meeting (9:49pm)
      1. Any objection to closing meeting?
      2. None
Shares 0
0 Shares
Share
Tweet