Fair Play: What gray area?
I REALLY thought the Cesafi provision on a player’s residency requirement was vague—what with the confusion on its interpretation and all.
A gray area, they call it. But, I think there are no gray areas in it.
The Cesafi rule states: Any player of a member school who transfers to another member school is required a minimum residence of two semesters before he is allowed to play.
It’s clear isn’t it?
Read it again.
Now, can someone who is no longer a student be a “player of that member school?”
If he is, then, that’s a first.
Cesafi is a school-based league. Shouldn’t you have to be a student first to be a player? Or can you just be one, even if you are not enrolled?
If that’s the case, I guess Cesafi can drop that other pesky rule, the one that requires players to pass 60 percent of their subjects.
But the issue is moot. The Cesafi board has already agreed with Commissioner Felix Tiukinhoy’s interpretation.
What isn’t, is the walkout.
The board—made up of the presidents of the member schools—is split. Some think the lifetime ban is too harsh, while the rest think it is apt.
Should the board be lenient? Only the board members can answer that.
However, wasn’t the lifetime ban specifically imposed for walkouts three years ago so Cesafi will be spared from troublesome and headache-inducing issues?
Issues like what the three volleyball coaches brought upon the Cesafi today?
It’s true, a lifetime ban is harsh.
But grave offenses merit grave penalties.
To serve as a deterrent, a warning.
Break the rule, pay the price.
The lifetime ban on walkouts was added so teams would NEVER dare walk out. One coach told me then, “Syaro na-a pay magtuga-tuga ug walkout kung ma-o na.”
But the threat of a harsh penalty didn’t work in the case of the volleyball coaches. It worked in basketball—Cesafi’s former problem child—and in other events. After 2006, you never even hear the word “walkout” whispered.
The volleyball coaches knew about the penalty even before the walkout, yet they pushed through and until now, they have shown no regrets and offered no apologies.
So, should the board be lenient to the three coaches?
I think the coaches themselves answered that when they boldly said “they were willing to pay the consequences of their actions.”
So, let ‘em.
I don’t know if the Cesafi board members, or Tiukinhoy, are getting paid for their job. If they are, they should start asking for a four-fold increase. Theirs is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation.
The board has to impose the lifetime ban, because it is in their guidelines. Failing to do so would open a whole new avenue for rules violation.
Erring coaches and players could just cite the Prima Donna Doctrine and say, “Hey, why punish us? You saved the volleyball coaches, remember?”
And to impose the ban, the school presidents would look harsh and nobody ever wants to be harsh.
Worse, there is no in-between for them. As Frank Malilong, the former commissioner of CAAA—Cesafi’s predecessor—said it: The board has to act decisively.
But of course, the board wouldn’t be in this trouble, if only the coaches didn’t walk out.
P.S. This isn’t the end of the board’s troubles. An old issue has cropped up. The Supreme Court—and this, Sir Frank, is also in your court—has recognized the validity of the MVP wing’s election in the BAP-SBP.
Cesafi has always maintained that it will wait for the SC decision before making its stand known. Now, it has to.
If the board members can’t get that four-fold increase, I guess a boxful of Advil will do.
A gray area, they call it. But, I think there are no gray areas in it.
The Cesafi rule states: Any player of a member school who transfers to another member school is required a minimum residence of two semesters before he is allowed to play.
It’s clear isn’t it?
Read it again.
Now, can someone who is no longer a student be a “player of that member school?”
If he is, then, that’s a first.
Cesafi is a school-based league. Shouldn’t you have to be a student first to be a player? Or can you just be one, even if you are not enrolled?
If that’s the case, I guess Cesafi can drop that other pesky rule, the one that requires players to pass 60 percent of their subjects.
But the issue is moot. The Cesafi board has already agreed with Commissioner Felix Tiukinhoy’s interpretation.
What isn’t, is the walkout.
The board—made up of the presidents of the member schools—is split. Some think the lifetime ban is too harsh, while the rest think it is apt.
Should the board be lenient? Only the board members can answer that.
However, wasn’t the lifetime ban specifically imposed for walkouts three years ago so Cesafi will be spared from troublesome and headache-inducing issues?
Issues like what the three volleyball coaches brought upon the Cesafi today?
It’s true, a lifetime ban is harsh.
But grave offenses merit grave penalties.
To serve as a deterrent, a warning.
Break the rule, pay the price.
The lifetime ban on walkouts was added so teams would NEVER dare walk out. One coach told me then, “Syaro na-a pay magtuga-tuga ug walkout kung ma-o na.”
But the threat of a harsh penalty didn’t work in the case of the volleyball coaches. It worked in basketball—Cesafi’s former problem child—and in other events. After 2006, you never even hear the word “walkout” whispered.
The volleyball coaches knew about the penalty even before the walkout, yet they pushed through and until now, they have shown no regrets and offered no apologies.
So, should the board be lenient to the three coaches?
I think the coaches themselves answered that when they boldly said “they were willing to pay the consequences of their actions.”
So, let ‘em.
I don’t know if the Cesafi board members, or Tiukinhoy, are getting paid for their job. If they are, they should start asking for a four-fold increase. Theirs is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation.
The board has to impose the lifetime ban, because it is in their guidelines. Failing to do so would open a whole new avenue for rules violation.
Erring coaches and players could just cite the Prima Donna Doctrine and say, “Hey, why punish us? You saved the volleyball coaches, remember?”
And to impose the ban, the school presidents would look harsh and nobody ever wants to be harsh.
Worse, there is no in-between for them. As Frank Malilong, the former commissioner of CAAA—Cesafi’s predecessor—said it: The board has to act decisively.
But of course, the board wouldn’t be in this trouble, if only the coaches didn’t walk out.
P.S. This isn’t the end of the board’s troubles. An old issue has cropped up. The Supreme Court—and this, Sir Frank, is also in your court—has recognized the validity of the MVP wing’s election in the BAP-SBP.
Cesafi has always maintained that it will wait for the SC decision before making its stand known. Now, it has to.
If the board members can’t get that four-fold increase, I guess a boxful of Advil will do.
Comments