TRU Board Notes – 11/27/2017

At the request of our members the TRU Board will be releasing their monthly board call minutes and notes. View all of the TRU archived minutes or read on for the most recent notes:

  • Roll Call
    • Young
    • Tate
    • James
    • Parker
    • Green
    • Turner
    • Yeoman (Congress)
    • Tomsak
    • Dodge
      • Regrets
        • None
  • Followups
    • Technical Zone feedback
      • Dodge: Diablos had concerns about TZ in that the coach can’t have access to his players, etc.
      • Tomsak: Shreveport has concerns as well since they are in a public park and can’t control everything.
      • Young: Shreveport can request a waiver, just need to send all information to admin@texasrugbyunion.com.
        • Tate: I personally don’t foresee the Union fining a club in a public park because they can’t follow this policy. But we do want to work to make sure that players/coaches are in a specific area. Clubs can request a waiver as well.
      • Tate: The key points of the TZ are to separate the coaches/players and fans/spectators from players. It also limits what the officials (referees) have to police throughout the match. We’ve all been to matches where ARs are being talked to, coaches are on the field, subs are running on and off. The goal is to bring some organization to all of the chaos.
      • Green: For those teams that don’t have the same field week in or are in a public park we’d encourage them to use cones or other ways to mark the TZs. This is the first year so we want to be flexible but we have to keep the sidelines organized.
      • Tate: I would take little feedback to mean that either the clubs or the referees aren’t having issues. I do realize that some divisions have yet to kick off. Does anyone have any issues with what we’ve discussed here? NONE.
    • Budget
      • Tate: [Reviewed proposed 2017-2018 budget]
        • Young: I think Dodge brought it up, but what are we filming for the MD4 and WD3?
        • Tate: We will be doing ONLY the final weekend. We will be using a new vendor this year as well.
        • Young: Yes, I have on my list to start getting quotes but we’ll need to know the locations first.
        • Dodge: Do we have a sense of how much the All Star event cost?
        • Young: Yes, it was well under budget as we only had one team and it was all done on one day. We have had the event in DFW the last two years and I don’t know that we will be able to swing that for a third year. I imagine we will have to travel if we want to continue supporting the All Star program.
        • Tate: Ok, so that would be in the 2018-2019 budget, but it sounds like we want to keep that in the budget.
        • Dodge: I’d like to see more available for the match filming since we are adding an entire event (MD4/WD3) and we will have to work with a new vendor.
        • Tate: I’ll make those adjustments and a few others that we’ve discussed. Do we have any objections to approving this via email? NONE.
    • Restructuring of MD4/WD3
      • Dodge: [Emailed a few requested changes]; My Questions:
        • Were these posted to the website and shared with teams?
        • Guest players
          • Dodge: Mostly this complaint is around the 3 guest players but there is no limitation for multi-side players. Can we open that up a bit?
          • Tate: The 3 guest players and guest players weren’t allowed during playoffs was intentional. We’re encouraging these clubs to grow and build over the season but when it comes to playoffs, it needs to be “their” team. I’m monitoring our CIPP levels and compliance as we move through the season; I can see already the men’s D4 will more than likely be able to play under these rules but WD3 may struggle.
          • Young: There have been some creative requests from the women already that make me believe that they are going to have issues as well.
          • Tate: Am I hearing that we need different regulations for the men and women?
          • Dodge: Well the women won’t start until late January, right Wendy?
          • Young: Correct, but we’d hope their rosters start filling up before then. I would urge that we wait and see if the teams can be viable.
          • Dodge: Ok, so we feel good about MD4, what if we review this on our next call and see where the women are at?
          • Young: I am good with that.
          • Dodge: For the current guidelines I move that we strike the word “away” from the current MD4/WD3 regulations.
            • Dodge: I also think we should ask the WD3 teams if they can get their numbers up. We need to know they are committed.
            • Young: I have recently asked this of the WD3 teams as the Austin Blacks women folded. I have received confirmations from all of them that they are working hard and most want to at least play 7s or 10s if they can’t do 15s.
            • Dodge: I motion that we survey the women’s teams and revisit the rules of the competition in mid January.
            • Tate: I am in agreement of both of these motions. Are there any objections? None. APPROVED.
        • What will be filmed?
          • Tate: Only the FINALS weekend, not any semi-finals etc.
    • Forfeit Policy
      • Tate: It was my understanding that played forfeits ONLY applied to MD4 and WD3. If you are playing in the RRRC there are no played forfeits allowed. The match is played or not.
      • Dodge: My understanding was that as of 9/19 we approved a policy that applied to all matches.
      • Tate: My concern is that we don’t have enough referees to be sending them to games of 10v10 etc. At the very least we should add that once we’ve received a notice of a played forfeit, referees will be provided as available.
      • Tate: I motion that we add “Upon notification of a played forfeit, referees will be provided as available.” Essentially this lets teams know that the played forfeit moves to the bottom of the priority chain. Any objection? None. APPROVED.
        • Parker: So we will fine a MD4 club?
        • Tate: Correct, if they don’t notify by the deadline and or don’t follow the policies of the forfeit, they could be fined. We can’t have teams not showing up with opponents and assigned referees.
          • Dodge: I move that we approve this.
          • Tomsak: Second.
          • Tate: Any further discussion? None. Any objections? None. APPROVED.
      • Dodge: A quick update from the RRRC call last week, a definition of the forfeit is handled the same but the tie breakers were updated to help mitigate forfeits and the points.
      • Young: Yes, this was posted in the minutes and I updated the post: https://texasrugbyunion.com/information/red-river-rugby-conference/rrrc-tie-breaker-policies/
    • RRRC Logo – APPROVED by RRRC Competitions Committee
      • Young: I’ve requested an invoice from Rugby Athletic and will be paying that this week. I will then have the art files and will place on our TRU Branding page and in our GDrive.
    • HOF Date
      • Tate: We had previously discussed having the 2017 HOF celebration coincide with the 2018 RRRC Championships.
      • Tomsak: I think that is a great idea.
      • Young: I can’t vote but think it’s a great idea.
      • Dodge: So then we would have the 2018 class with the Summit in August/September?
      • Tate: Correct.
      • Dodge: How much of a strain would that put on our budget?
      • Tate: We would have to asses that, we’ve only had one event to compare to.
      • Tomsak: We didn’t spend the money last year, so we have that budget in place.
      • Tate: It’s going to involve some additional cost, it’s a good point to raise. I’ll review that budget line item as it will need to be increased for 2018. Long term the goal is have the HOF self-funding but we aren’t there yet.
      • Young: Can we put out a bid request for RRRC Championships and the HOF location be due by Jan 31? That way we have plenty of time for HOF guests to arrange everything.
      • Tate: I’m OK with that but worry that clubs won’t be ready in that time.
      • Young: Some of the feedback we got last year was that venues were already booked up, so I think earlier is better this time around.
      • Tate: Awesome, let’s take last year’s call for bids and propose some dates. Then send that Dodge (RRRC Chair) and I and we can run it through the right committees. Unless there are any major objections we can come back with a reasonable deadline for bid submissions. Does that work for you Dodge?
      • Dodge: Yes.
      • Young: Ok, I’ll get that updated and will also post a save a date for the HOF.
    • AGM Winter/Spring date
      • Young: Avoid these dates:
        • Jan 19-21 – USAR NDS
        • Feb 3, USAR event
        • Feb 1-25 – ARC matches
      • Young: What about Jan 28? It avoids the ARC matches, Vegas etc.
      • Tate: Does anyone have an objection to Sunday, January 28? None. APPROVED.
        • Young: We will use my Webex account and I’ll make sure the website post is clear that we are using that service and have some tips on using it.
  • MLR matches in CMS?
    • Young: I’ve had two inquiries about if these matches will be in CMS. I told the clubs no, but wanted to have it documented somewhere.
    • Tate: Correct, this is not a USAR sanctioned league so they will not be in CMS at this time. We do recommend that clubs that play MLR teams only use CIPP’d players and follow all normal eligibility guidelines.
    • Turner: What about referee resources?
    • Tate: My understanding is that they don’t start their league season until April.
    • Green: They will be contracting for referee services for their pre-season matches. After that it will be taken over by a private company.
    • Turner: Are TRRA members able to referee non-CIPP”d players? MLR isn’t CIPP’d.
    • Green: Yes.
    • Tate: MLR will want to include insurance that covers those referees. As far as referee resources, it’s not that different than in the past. We have referees that receive USAR match appointments often and they wouldn’t be available to TRRA.
    • Green: The issue that might be of concern with the TRU is the teams playing the MLR teams. The CIPP insurance won’t cover these matches as far as I understand it. If one person is not CIPP’d, then it is considered that no one is CIPP’d.
    • Dodge: I agree with the understanding, but I was also told that the Houston Sabrecats are all CIPP’d with the TRU or at large. We insisted on that as a condition of our recent match.
  • Operating Procedures Updates
    • April updates (cleaning up disciplinary procedures)
      • Young: This is mostly cosmetic changes where I removed old language. We had some old language that was incorrect when it came to disciplinary so I updated all of that. I sent it out to the Board last week but will send it out again.
    • October update
      • Young: This adds in technical zones and the CMS unlock fee.
      • Tate: Ok, can you add the newly approved forfeit policy and the tie breaker update for RRRC? Then please send that out to the Board to review. Comments and thoughts are due in one week.
  • Grant Request
    • Dennis Walker (Classic Eagles)
      • Tate: Does anyone know if we’ve done a grant for Classic Eagles? Typically we’ve done grants for coach development or USA Rugby events. My question for the Board is if this is supporting a social event or is this representing the TRU on a national level?
      • Turner: What if we looked at the mission of the Classic Eagles?
      • Young: I was just looking that up! http://www.classic-eagles.com/usa-classic-eagles-rugby-about.php
      • Turner: I also see a link to them on USAR website, giving them a bit more credibility.
      • Tomsak: I think that anytime we can have the USAR logo out there on a TRU member, it’s a good thing.
      • Turner: I motion that we approve a grant of $250 for Dennis Walker and his participation in the Classic Eagles.
        • Tomsak: I second.
        • Tate: Any further discussion? None. Any objections? None. APPROVED.
  • New Business?
    • None
  • Adjourned (9:48 pm)
    • Dodge: Motion to close.
    • Parker: Second.
7 Shares
Share7
Tweet