fbpx

http://bestxxxhere.com dontwatchporn.pro http://www.xxxone.net dicke deutsche bbw amateur titten von jungem kerl gefickt.

RRRC Competitions Committee Notes – 2/13/23

by
  1. Roll Call
    1. Young
    2. Kurylas
    3. Norton
    4. Hanlon
    5. Dale
    6. Martin
    7. Horn
    8. Roche
    9. McPhail
    10. Fosco
    11. Curl
    12. Hughes
      1. Regrets
        1. Keuppens
  2. Forfeits
    1. 12/17 Little Rock vs Denton M – Denton played forfeit
    2. 1/14 – Huns III vs HURT II M – HURT unplayed forfeit with late notification / TRU fined per policy
    3. 1/21 Grand Prairie vs HURT M – unplayed forfeit, notification was done before deadline, no additional sanction
    4. 1/14 Corpus Christi vs ORC M – ORC unplayed forfeit with late notification, TRU fined per policy
    5. 2/4 Shreveport vs Kingwood M – Kingwood unplayed forfeit with Sat morning notification
      1. Also rescheduled their 1/26 match due to numbers to 3/4
      2. Will be referred to TRU Board for review because of late notification
    6. 2/11 OKC Crusaders vs Denton – Denton played forfeit
  3. MD3
    1. Grand Prairie, HURT & ORC all forfeited
      1. San Antonio replaced HURT II
        1. McPhail: Even though we’ve had three teams drop out we were able to work with San Antonio to slide into HURT’s schedule. 
        2. Hanlon: Are we concerned about any other teams dropping out?
        3. McPhail: We received notice from Kingwood that they are struggling with numbers. Travis has been talking with Otis.
        4. Hughes: Yes, I talked with Otis and they are confident they can finish out their season. They are having a team meeting this week to focus on. The rest of their matches are “away” but they are in the Houston greater area so they should be ok.
        5. McPhail: I’ve also heard that West Houston is struggling. They have great numbers but personal life is getting in the way.
        6. Roche: Denton has had two played forfeits.
        7. McPhail: Kurylas, can you check in with them?
        8. Kurylas: Yes, I can do that.
        9. Hanlon: With all the dropouts and forfeits, should we be a bit more proactive in trying to learn about the structures of these clubs? We could do a survey to check-in or something like that.
        10. Roche: That sounds like a good idea.
        11. McPhail: Sure, more information is always good.
  4. Reschedules
    1. 12/10 HARC M vs San Antonio M
    2. 2/4 Shreveport M vs Kingwood M
      1. Roche: The above matches are still outstanding and need to be rescheduled.
      2. Horn: I’ll follow up with HARC.
  5. WD1
    1. Young: Wanted to provide an update that we’re having a hard time getting the Frontier teams to enter their game data into RX. We had already created a cross-league competition in RX but haven’t been able to get a schedule from the Frontier/Rocky Mtn clubs and we have no data in RX. We did confirm that Utah forfeited to the CO Gray Wolves on 10/1 so they aren’t eligible to move on to Nationals. We’re working with our contact in Frontier to get their matches added and RX data updated so we have an accurate database.
  6. 1/21 Alamo City vs Ft Hood – AC match sec was traveling and didn’t confirm referee, called Wendy at 2:12pm on match day, referee rightly didn’t travel after reaching out, teams ended up using a Lonestar referee
    1. Young: This is a reminder that clubs must confirm matches by Wed, referees to reach out to TRU and TRRA admins if they don’t hear from teams.
    2. Martin: The assigned attempted to confirm via email but never heard back. I confirmed with her that she should not go since she never received confirmation of the match.
    3. McPhail: Ok, let this be a reminder to clubs that they need to confirm via the TRU policies or they risk not having a referee at their match.
  7. 2022-23 Eligibility Guidelines
    1. Norton: We got these posted on the website and there were some questions on social media that we were happy to answer. 
    2. McPhail: Yes, I saw that Kirk responded to a few and you handled some as well. 
  8. Roster Issues
    1. McPhail: What are we doing with name withheld?
    2. Norton: I talked with Kirk and we decided that we’ve done enough warnings and we’ve talked to all clubs. So we won’t babysit it anymore and Kirk recommended that fines from the TRU can begin.
    3. McPhail: Kirk included two questions in the email thread and he felt that the answers should be YES but wanted to talk about this with the RRRC:
      1. 1. From this date forward, if there is a protest based on the legitimacy of a roster or eligibility of a player due to a name being withheld or any other issues, is RRRC willing to declare the match a forfeit by the violating team?
        1. Roche: I don’t understand this spazzing about name withheld on the roster. I do understand that when viewing the public roster that you can’t see the player names. Wendy and I can see it on the administrative panel and teams can also see it on the backend. I feel that if we declare a match a forfeit based on this that we are well off base.
        2. Norton: So we’ve been chasing clubs for weeks on this and it doesn’t seem like everyone has gotten the message. I don’t think we should have to keep chasing these clubs. I don’t think a forfeit is a solution either. 
        3. Roche: I also don’t think we should police this every week and we should deal with it if there is an issue. The easy fix is to ask the team who that player is and they should have to produce a roster with all names.
        4. McPhail: I think there are two issues, the TRU Board has clearly said that clubs should clean up their rosters. The RRRC has followed that mandate. We have had the book check in place for 20 years with little success. But at the end of the day if Team A and Team B don’t do a book check then clubs can follow the process to play under protest. I don’t think it should be an automatic forfeit because of name withheld. My understanding is teams can’t clean it up there will be a fine from the TRU Board. 
        5. Kurylas: If everyone is using the MatchDay app it shouldn’t be an issue because clubs can show each other the rosters as that doesn’t show name withheld.
        6. Horn: I agree with that.
        7. Norton: But if they check the public roster it will still show as name withheld.
        8. Roche: So then the Team asks the other team to share the actual player’s name.
        9. Hughes: Agree. Let’s use the technology that is available to us.
        10. Roche: Yes and if they won’t show you then the match should be played under protest and the TRU will deal with that club.
        11. McPhil: Let’s take a step back, Kat and Wendy when you are reviewing match data on Monday if you see a roster issue are you issuing the fine?
        12. Young: We are following policy but we haven’t issued any fines yet.
        13. Roche: Yes, we are following the TRU policy but we haven’t started doing it yet.
        14. McPhail: OK, so we agree from week to week that if there is a roster issue that they should be fined per TRU policy. The RRRC will no longer check or send emails on this on a weekly basis. We urge clubs to verify rosters at the field per RRRC policy (book check), trade rosters, check MatchDay App, etc…if the clubs don’t do their due diligence then they are liable for competitive sanction and/or to be fined by the TRU. 
          1. Norton: Second.
          2. McPhail: Any objection? NONE. APPROVED.
      2. 2. When it does come time to validate playoff rosters, is RRRC willing to rule a player ineligible if it can’t be shown from the records they played the minimum required qualifying matches?
        1. Norton: If a club can’t show eligibility for a player then they are not eligible.
        2. Kurylas: Can’t Wendy and Kat confirm if they have played? 
        3. McPhail: I believe so but I just want to be clear.
        4. Roche: Yes, Wendy and I can see everything as RX Administrators.
        5. Young: We also have the player report that shows what matches they played in, were they a reserve, etc. 
        6. McPhail: Everyone agrees that we have a tool to use for this then? No objections. Ok, should we put a line in the sand to clubs so they understand that they are responsible for tracking player eligibility?
        7. Norton: We also just posted the eligibility notes and clubs should be tracking this themselves already. 
        8. McPhail: I feel like we would be doing a good step of sharing this information with our clubs. Not just pointing them to the report but actually pulling the data.
        9. Hughes: Is there an easy report that can be run and shared with the players?
        10. Young: Yes, I run it every week for the clubs and it’s available publicly. Clubs can also run it on their own RX Dashboard > Administration > Reports > Player & Team Official History Report.
        11. Dale: I can write something up as well. Shawn, could we also make sure referees know this information? I’ve had to show several of them.
        12. Martin: Yes, happy to share that out.
  9. Pitch Protocol and Inspection Form
    1. Dale: I created this from a few resources I found online and we adjusted it for RRRC. There are notes and comments from RRRC members and I’ve gone through all of them. The idea is that it’s a guideline for the home or visiting team if there are concerns about playing on the surface. This was a first draft and it needs more work.
    2. McPhail: Do you envision this being a form if there is an issue?
    3. Dale: Yes, I think that would be the best thing so the club’s can refer to guidelines and then fill out a form.
    4. Young: I think it’s a good start but it’s not clear who some of the responsible parties are…
    5. McPhail: Ok, let’s have everyone take a look at it and keep refining it.
  10. Competition Tables
    1. Young: The competition website that RX provides for us is https://xplorer.rugby/texas. I started guessing other URLs of all the other Unions and LAUs. I think I’ve got most of them so I added a list to the bottom of the competition page if others are interested in checking out other Unions.                          . 
  11. RRRC / TRU Championships on 4/22-23
    1. McPhail: We are 60 days out from this event. I assume you and Kat have this started?
    2. Young: We haven’t started planning yet and will start to focus on that next month. We’ve worked with the Huns before and Hansel has been in contact.
  12. Gulf Coast Super Regional 5/6-7
    1. McPhail: The word on the street is that this will be in Orlando, FL. This hasn’t been formally confirmed yet but a formal announcement should be coming soon. The announcement will include hotel information and such.
    2. Young: I did want to let everyone know that I can’t go to this event. I have a commitment with the MLR.
    3. McPhail: They aren’t sure what type of administrative support they will want from us.They are still assessing and will let us know.
  13. 7s
    1. McPhail: Fil is obviously the Club 7s representative and he has pushed down a reorganization. The USAR Senior Club Council approved four regions, we are lumped in with Chicago, Western Pennsylvania, Kansas City and such. Basically it’s us all the way up to Chicago. I am a Regional representative for our region and working with Pat Khalaf (Detroit / Midwest) on venues and such. We continue working through what local competitions and what qualifiers will look like. I think we will still have our local 7s tournaments but our clubs may need to go to Super Regional Qualifiers. We’re still working through seeding, pathways, etc.
    2. Young: Are we putting out a request for tournaments like we’ve done the last few years? We’ve gotten heat before when we “assign” events.
    3. McPhail: Yes, we will. I asked Fil what we want to do timing wise on that and we’re hoping to have a bunch of parts sorted by the end of the week.
    4. Young: Great.
  14. New Business
    1. None.
  15. Meeting Adjournment (9:10 PM)