Author Topic: NCAA / UAAP 2013 (Read 205716 times)

boredfilmmaker · « **Reply #1230 on:** Sep 11, 2013 at 06:53 PM »

So I guess Ateneans will cheer for La Salle on Saturday?

NU is now assured of twice-to-beat advantage. They'll be No. 1 if La Salle wins on Saturday. They'll be No.2 f La Salle loses.

energizer_jc · « **Reply #1231 on:** Sep 11, 2013 at 07:12 PM »

Kinda weird but necessary if you want to keep your season alive. Hahahaha!

Wiggum · « **Reply #1232 on:** Sep 11, 2013 at 07:20 PM »

^^ If DLSU loses on Saturday, won't there be an extra game between NU and FEU just to determine 1st/2nd?

Seems to me it's *okay* for DLSU to lose on Saturday. Worst case is they end up 3rd and needing to win two more against whoever the 2nd seed will be. Best case is they go into a virtual best-of-three with FEU, still needing to win two more games to make the Finals.

This assumes, of course, that the UAAP Board won't mete out forfeiture penalties tomorrow to all the teams that ADMU cited in its protest.

EDITED: Puwede pa pala mag-tie ang DLSU and UST at 9-5 - does this mean they need an extra game just to determine 3rd/4th? In which case, it's not *okay* for DLSU to lose on Saturday.

boredfilmmaker · « **Reply #1233 on:** Sep 11, 2013 at 07:37 PM »

Quote from: Wiggum on Sep 11, 2013 at 07:20 PM

^^ If DLSU loses on Saturday, won't there be an extra game between NU and FEU just to determine 1st/2nd?

Nope. Quotient lang kasi seeding lang pinaguusapan. May playoff lang if the spot na pinaglalabanan ay may incentive. So yung ties for 2nd place at 4th place lang yung may playoff.

Wiggum · « **Reply #1234 on:** Sep 11, 2013 at 07:42 PM »

Quote from: boredfilmmaker on Sep 11, 2013 at 07:37 PM

Nope. Quotient lang kasi seeding lang pinaguusapan. May playoff lang if the spot na pinaglalabanan ay may incentive. So yung ties for 2nd place at 4th place lang yung may playoff.

EDITED: Thanks. This also answers my question if a playoff game is needed in case DLSU and UST end up tied at 9-5.

steelcrazy · « **Reply #1235 on:** Sep 11, 2013 at 09:45 PM »

What's the point of insisting about the RULE that suspended players and coaches are not allowed inside the playing venue when their respective teams are playing?
Do their presence affect the game itself?
The suspended players certainly wont be playing and the suspended coaches wont be coaching inside the court (though suspended coaches can still relate instructions via a cellphone anyway).

Games are won inside the court and not all about those technicalities that are very annoying and embarassing for changing outcomes of a hard played game.

In my personal opinion, if no teams cheat about the legality of their players and coaches, JUST LET IT BE.

leomarley · « **Reply #1236 on:** Sep 11, 2013 at 10:37 PM »

then just abolish the rules if that's what you want. bale wala lang pala eh since technicality lang. why point at the rules for this problem eh hindi naman yun ang nagcause?

steelcrazy · « **Reply #1237 on:** Sep 11, 2013 at 11:10 PM »

Quote from: leomarley on Sep 11, 2013 at 10:37 PM

then just abolish the rules if that's what you want. bale wala lang pala eh since technicality lang. why point at the rules for this problem eh hindi naman yun ang nagcause?

No point arguing about the outcome due to technicalities.
If they wana set the rules straight, then dont start the game unless everything is clear.
State the protest before the start of the game.
Sayang namn un pinaghirapan ng mga players sa game then the losing team will just protest afterwards due to those technicalities.

leomarley · « **Reply #1238 on:** Sep 11, 2013 at 11:27 PM »

Quote from: steelcrazy on Sep 11, 2013 at 11:10 PM

No point arguing about the outcome due to technicalities.
If they wana set the rules straight, then dont start the game unless everything is clear.
State the protest before the start of the game.
Sayang namn un pinaghirapan ng mga players sa game then the losing team will just protest afterwards due to those technicalities.

then again that's not the rules. it's not the complaining team's fault if the violating team doesn't know the rules or know it but just simply ignored it. again don't put the blame on the rules but to the party who violated it.

newwaveboy · « **Reply #1239 on:** Sep 11, 2013 at 11:49 PM »

Like I said, winning on a technicality doesn't look good ...... but if the complaint has all basis, unpopular or not, it should be upheld.

From the looks of things (what is revealed in the papers so far), UE has enough to warrant a replay/reversal of its last loss against ADMU.

I'd prefer Comm. Loyzaga uphold an unpopular, but correct ruling rather than get swayed by "forces" into making a popular, albeit wrong one.

steelcrazy · « **Reply #1240 on:** Sep 12, 2013 at 08:33 AM »

Quote from: newwaveboy on Sep 11, 2013 at 11:49 PM

Like I said, winning on a technicality doesn't look good ...... but if the complaint has all basis, unpopular or not, it should be upheld.

From the looks of things (what is revealed in the papers so far), UE has enough to warrant a replay/reversal of its last loss against ADMU.

I'd prefer Comm. Loyzaga uphold an unpopular, but correct ruling rather than get swayed by "forces" into making a popular, albeit wrong one.

So what should Commissioner Loyzaga do?
He's been very consistent suspending players, referees and a coach.
With regards to that RULE stating suspended players and coaches are not allowed inside the venue, i think all the teams knew that RULE from the very start or ever since that RULE was drafted.
Suspended UE players like Mamie and Olivares, FEUs RR Garcia, DLSU Tomas Torres (even interviewed before the game against Ateneo) were seen on national TV as spectators.
Nobody got them out before the start of their respective team's game. Even their respective mother school team officials didnt mind their presence thus also ignoring that RULE and at this moment, should Comm Loyzaga look back into this and call for forfeiture of the winning team due to technicalities just to continue his consistency?

The Commissioner's decision can be over ruled by the board anyway so i dont think he can do so much about this.

leomarley · « **Reply #1241 on:** Sep 12, 2013 at 08:44 AM »

as stated before, they had a window to file a complaint but the teams didn't. unfortunately for Ateneo, UE filed a complaint within the window so you can't compare this violation to the others because NO ONE FILED A COMPLAINT.

elim · « **Reply #1242 on:** Sep 12, 2013 at 10:52 AM »

Quote from: steelcrazy on Sep 11, 2013 at 11:10 PM

No point arguing about the outcome due to technicalities.
If they wana set the rules straight, then dont start the game unless everything is clear.
State the protest before the start of the game.
Sayang namn un pinaghirapan ng mga players sa game then the losing team will just protest afterwards due to those technicalities.

How can you state a protest in the beginning of the game if the person is not in plain sight until after the final buzzer? Bo was in the locker room where no one could see him. What would be his purpose on staying there? To give directions to players during half time and/or give an speech. Either way we cannot deny that he broke the rule. As to my point of view he tried to cheat by coaching at the background. You cant argue that he could have coached via cell phone because if you do play basketball you'll know that its next to pointless to give out plays without physically being there.

Please also read the rules that the coaches/staff that are suspended are not allowed in the venue it self while players are not allowed in the "direct vicinity of the bench" which is subject for interpretation.

questforthegoodlife · « **Reply #1243 on:** Sep 12, 2013 at 12:06 PM »

What sucks about the situation is that IF the UAAP Board (not the commissioner) votes for a replay and UE and Ateneo plays again, and should Ateneo win again it would still be win that won't be convince to people since UE's roy sumang is still not 100% from the injury he sustained in that game.

Also, leaving the decision to the UAAP BOARD is quite hard when the voting members have their own vested interest at play when they vote. Those who will vote today:-

FEU - final four contender
DLSU - final four contender
UST - final four contender
NU - final four contender
UP - not a final four contender

Those who cannot vote:-

ADMU
UE
ADU - season's host - will only vote if there is a tie.

http://www.inboundpass.com/2013/09/10/the-games-that-play-us-aint-it-fun/

First, there IS a rule that CLEARLY does state that any suspended team personnel (it is defined as any member of the team that is NOT an athlete, so it refers to coaches, managers, medics, masahistas, etc.) should NOT be in the game venue.

(In the absence of a free-to-share hard copy of any UAAP rulebook, you may look at the UAAP’s Rules & Regulations here on Inboundpass.com.)

Was coach Bo Perasol suspended? Yes.
Was he in the MOA Arena during Ateneo’s game against UE? Yes, he was at the dugout during the game and went to the playing area afterwards.
Does this, technically, constitute a violation of the aforementioned rule? I want to think of an eloquent rebuff, but the painful fact is YES IT DOES. As a person of authority in my school, I try to enlighten students about the importance of abiding by and respecting rules and regulations, and my initial stand on this issue is that Ateneo should face the music. If the win is forfeited, then so be it.
BUT THEN an article comes out that alleges how coach Bo was allowed by a member of the UAAP Board to be in the venue. Do the rules & regulations have any provisions that can shed light on this development? Oops. And who is this “person who granted permission” anyway? #ThePlotThickens
And then now the Eagles come out with their own counterpunch statement: How about the other UAAP personalities suspended throughout the course of the season? Maybe we should look into their presence in the “immediate vicinity of the bench,” too, right? (See article on Rick Olivares’s blog)
Were there, at different points in the season, suspended players who were seen/recorded present during their respective team’s games? Yes (Charles Mammie), yes (Lord Casajeros), yes (RR Garcia), and more yeses (Thomas Torres & Ralf Olivares).
Do these, technically, constitute violations of the rules & regulations for suspended athletes? Well, UNLESS the UAAP Board has a very strange interpretation of the clause, “A suspended athlete shall not be allowed to sit in the bench and its immediate vicinity during the period of suspension,” then I say YES. Of course, some quarters have said that before the Board can discuss matters on suspended players’ presence during games, there should be complaints filed (some even say such complaints have to be filed within 24 hours of the alleged violation). I have, however, not found any provision in the rules & regulations that support that (not sure if there any precedents, though).
So where do these things leave us UAAP fans and observers?
Well, folks, this is pretty much the UAAP equivalent of crap hitting the fan (which seems to be an annual thing like non-working holidays). Should the Board tackle UE’s “concern” about coach Bo, then I implore the Board to also discuss Ateneo’s “concerns” about the many suspended players. That is the only fair thing, after all, right? Whatever the consequences are, I just hope they will be meted out with, at the very least, no impression of any prejudice (HA! FAT CHANCE!).
In the unlikely event that both UE and Ateneo “get what they want,” then, well, I don’t even know where to begin with the possible consequences or sanctions. Will Ateneo and UE have a rematch? Will UE lose all its “contested” games (Charles Mammie & Lord Casajeros)? How about DLSU (Thomas Torres) and FEU (RR Garcia)?
Man, this is going to be dramatic, which is just par for the course in the UAAP.
Of course, coming from an Atenean’s perspective, I cannot help but entertain the surreal (or is it?) idea that maybe all these are part and parcel of a heavily convoluted series of developments culminating in Ateneo’s six-peat dream getting derailed.
From being THE big fish in the pond, to being fed on.
Ain’t it fun?

elim · « **Reply #1244 on:** Sep 12, 2013 at 03:23 PM »

Another thing that has to be considered in the matter. With the presence of Bo and Olivares which team benefited? Olivares couldn't couldn't have helped his team (being a player) while Bo could have coached his team during half time. In my opinion he could have thought that an advantage could have been gained with his attendance. I just find it "magulang"

questforthegoodlife · « **Reply #1245 on:** Sep 12, 2013 at 05:18 PM »

Quote from: elim on Sep 12, 2013 at 03:23 PM

Another thing that has to be considered in the matter. With the presence of Bo and Olivares which team benefited? Olivares couldn't couldn't have helped his team (being a player) while Bo could have coached his team during half time. In my opinion he could have thought that an advantage could have been gained with his attendance. I just find it "magulang"

Agree. He should have not been at the venue even if he secured the permission of a UAAP Board member /technical member.

boredfilmmaker · « **Reply #1246 on:** Sep 12, 2013 at 05:52 PM »

The Ateneo win has not been forfeited. Instead, the board has suspended Bo Perasol one more game (vs UST) and warned Olivares. That's according to Inquirer Sports.

sardaukar · « **Reply #1247 on:** Sep 12, 2013 at 05:52 PM »

No forfeitures, but Perasol to serve his suspension versus UST

deist · « **Reply #1248 on:** Sep 12, 2013 at 06:12 PM »

IMO it's a fair decision.

Verbl Kint · « **Reply #1249 on:** Sep 12, 2013 at 06:14 PM »

Solomonic decision, IMHO. Well done, commish chito.

boredfilmmaker · « **Reply #1250 on:** Sep 12, 2013 at 07:57 PM »

Quote from: Verbl Kint on Sep 12, 2013 at 06:14 PM

Solomonic decision, IMHO. Well done, commish chito.

It was the UAAP Board that made the decision, not Chito Loyzaga. The complaints were addressed to the UAAP Board and the commissioner doesn't rule on matters that didn't happen on the playing court.

energizer_jc · « **Reply #1251 on:** Sep 13, 2013 at 12:33 AM »

This what Palou did after:

Ateneo wants La Salle reps out of UAAP Board

By Camille B. Naredo, ABS-CBNnews.com
Posted at 09/12/2013 7:41 PM | Updated as of 09/12/2013 7:56 PM

MANILA, Philippines – Ateneo board representative Ricky Palou asked for the removal of La Salle representatives Henry Atayde and Edwin Reyes from the UAAP Board during their meeting on Thursday, claiming that they are not qualified for the position.

In an interview with ABS-CBNnews.com, Palou confirmed that he pushed for the removal of Atayde and Reyes from the UAAP Board.

“If you look at the rules, they are not qualified to be UAAP Board members,” Palou said. “The rules say that each university will be entitled to two board members. One must be an athletic director or a PE director, and the second board member must be a professor or a member of the administration.”

“Atayde and Reyes are consultants,” he said.

But Atayde, in an exclusive interview with ABS-CBNnews.com, stressed that both he and Reyes were qualified for the position and have been approved by the Board at the start of the season.

“I am a sports marketing director for the Office of Sports Development, and I am also the president of the World Union of Former La Sallian Students. I am a sports consultant for La Salle Green Hills,” Atayde told ABS-CBNnews.com.

According to Atayde, Reyes “goes to the office three times a week and plans out fundraising activities for DLSU.”

Atayde pointed out that they are following the rules, since he comes from the sports office, while Reyes is a member of the administration.

When told that Atayde insisted that he and Reyes were qualified to be board members, Palou said: “That’s a lie. That’s a big lie.”

“I asked them before I brought this topic up, and they said that they’re consultants,” he said.

The UAAP Board did not act on Palou’s motion. Instead, UAAP president Fr. Max Rendon of Adamson University will convene the presidents of the other member schools in a meeting next Sunday to discuss the matter, as well as the other issues that have plagued the league in Season 76.

When asked if he plans to continue to push for the La Salle representatives' removal from the league board, Palou answered: "Of course."

brainwashed · « **Reply #1252 on:** Sep 13, 2013 at 01:32 AM »

Quote from: energizer_jc on Sep 13, 2013 at 12:33 AM

This what Palou did after:

Ateneo wants La Salle reps out of UAAP Board

By Camille B. Naredo, ABS-CBNnews.com
Posted at 09/12/2013 7:41 PM | Updated as of 09/12/2013 7:56 PM

MANILA, Philippines – Ateneo board representative Ricky Palou asked for the removal of La Salle representatives Henry Atayde and Edwin Reyes from the UAAP Board during their meeting on Thursday, claiming that they are not qualified for the position.

In an interview with ABS-CBNnews.com, Palou confirmed that he pushed for the removal of Atayde and Reyes from the UAAP Board.

“If you look at the rules, they are not qualified to be UAAP Board members,” Palou said. “The rules say that each university will be entitled to two board members. One must be an athletic director or a PE director, and the second board member must be a professor or a member of the administration.”

“Atayde and Reyes are consultants,” he said.

...

This is what happens when you don't let sleeping dogs lie.

In any organization, there are rules and policies that everyone simply ignore or loosely follow. There are rules and policies that everyone ignore because no one believes in them. There are rules and policies that everyone loosely follow for the simple reason that leeway is being given to the other person. In other words, there are rules, and there are rules! I guess if the other university board members are willing to explore the world of technicalities, then Ricky Palou would be more than willing to meet them head-on.

questforthegoodlife · « **Reply #1253 on:** Sep 13, 2013 at 10:25 AM »

Quote from: brainwashed on Sep 13, 2013 at 01:32 AM

This is what happens when you don't let sleeping dogs lie.

In any organization, there are rules and policies that everyone simply ignore or loosely follow. There are rules and policies that everyone ignore because no one believes in them. There are rules and policies that everyone loosely follow for the simple reason that leeway is being given to the other person. In other words, there are rules, and there are rules! I guess if the other university board members are willing to explore the world of technicalities, then Ricky Palou would be more than willing to meet them head-on.

Wow! nicely put. I thought i was the only one who thought that way. A line from a song popped into my head - Fall out boy's "Sugar, we're going down swinging".

May pinaghuhugutan yan and it's not because of this just one issue in basketball. All the shenanigans just came to a head and it came to this. Atayde dared Palou, and he got it.

elim · « **Reply #1254 on:** Sep 13, 2013 at 10:37 AM »

How about this "board member" who gave permission to Bo to be at the venue? Should this person be named and removed as well?

Just to declare, Im from DLSU but would still like the ADMU team to get to the final four. I like the team except for the coach.

Next question is why go after DLSU? Isn't it that UE was the one filed the complaint?

elim · « **Reply #1255 on:** Sep 13, 2013 at 10:43 AM »

Quote from: questforthegoodlife on Sep 12, 2013 at 05:18 PM

Agree. He should have not been at the venue even if he secured the permission of a UAAP Board member /technical member.

I appreciate it when people see things objectively and not try to cover up mistakes for their groups advantage. Thank you bro quest for this.

questforthegoodlife · « **Reply #1256 on:** Sep 13, 2013 at 11:08 AM »

Quote from: elim on Sep 13, 2013 at 10:37 AM

How about this "board member" who gave permission to Bo to be at the venue? Should this person be named and removed as well?

Just to declare, Im from DLSU but would still like the ADMU team to get to the final four. I like the team except for the coach.

Next question is why go after DLSU? Isn't it that UE was the one filed the complaint?

It's not just the basketball issue why Ricky Palou is going after DLSU reps. Let's just say that voting on a couple of issues UAAP wide not just limited to basketball (Eligibility, forfeitures, bans, etc.) wherein Ateneo and DLSU were on opposite sides and that yesterday DLSU tried to cash in the favors they dished out to the other schools for voting the way they did on those issues and tried to pull something.

Also, Henry Atayde resented the decision of having JJ Atayde for being banned for the season (when JJ atayde himself voluntarily said he won't watch the games this season - correct me if i'm wrong here) and wanted the ban reversed.

There are a lot of issues, basta as what sir brainwashed said this is what happens when you don't let sleeping dogs lie.

Think of the UAAP Board in terms of the game of thrones. Each school has their own vested interest and their vote on particular issues are not objective most of the time and they would seek alliances / favors / scratch your back you scratch mine when the time comes. Unfortunately, yesterday when DLSU decided to cash in the favor with the other members it didn't go their way and they got exposed and now Palou is calling them out on it.

For me useless ung elevating issues / overturning the decision of the commissioner by running to the UAAP Board.

PS. also for the board member who gave permission, i tried asking but wasn't given a name yet. haha. Basta, Bo only went to the venue because he got permission and the numerous observation that suspended players were at the games / immediate vicinity and that rule wasn't really imposed coz' their presence would not really affect the game and nobody really invokes that rule. Also, UE didn't protest the win but only asked for "clarification" on the rule by the prodding of some other school. haha.

elim · « **Reply #1257 on:** Sep 13, 2013 at 11:19 AM »

thanks for the info bro. I thought it was just a simple case of what happened recently. It has a deeper back story pala.

questforthegoodlife · « **Reply #1258 on:** Sep 13, 2013 at 11:51 AM »

Quote from: elim on Sep 13, 2013 at 11:19 AM

thanks for the info bro. I thought it was just a simple case of what happened recently. It has a deeper back story pala.

All I wish for is to let the players/team win or lose it on the court. the league is too commercialized already.

gaol · « **Reply #1259 on:** Sep 13, 2013 at 12:20 PM »

Quote from: questforthegoodlife on Sep 13, 2013 at 11:08 AM

It's not just the basketball issue why Ricky Palou is going after DLSU reps. Let's just say that voting on a couple of issues UAAP wide not just limited to basketball (Eligibility, forfeitures, bans, etc.) wherein Ateneo and DLSU were on opposite sides and that yesterday DLSU tried to cash in the favors they dished out to the other schools for voting the way they did on those issues and tried to pull something.

Also, Henry Atayde resented the decision of having JJ Atayde for being banned for the season (when JJ atayde himself voluntarily said he won't watch the games this season - correct me if i'm wrong here) and wanted the ban reversed.

There are a lot of issues, basta as what sir brainwashed said this is what happens when you don't let sleeping dogs lie.

Think of the UAAP Board in terms of the game of thrones. Each school has their own vested interest and their vote on particular issues are not objective most of the time and they would seek alliances / favors / scratch your back you scratch mine when the time comes. Unfortunately, yesterday when DLSU decided to cash in the favor with the other members it didn't go their way and they got exposed and now Palou is calling them out on it.

For me useless ung elevating issues / overturning the decision of the commissioner by running to the UAAP Board.

PS. also for the board member who gave permission, i tried asking but wasn't given a name yet. haha. Basta, Bo only went to the venue because he got permission and the numerous observation that suspended players were at the games / immediate vicinity and that rule wasn't really imposed coz' their presence would not really affect the game and nobody really invokes that rule. Also, UE didn't protest the win but only asked for "clarification" on the rule by the prodding of some other school. haha.

I wonder what school prodded UE to "ask for clarification" ....