PDA

View Full Version : Another stupid UAAP rule



atenean_blooded
07-15-2007, 06:54 PM
This seasons has been riddled by scandalous things. First was the Montinola vs. Soc Rivera and Other UAAP HS Athletes fiasco. Then, the UST Jojo Duncil Multiple NSO Certification Scandal. Then of course, the UST Selection of NAS As A Viable UAAP Venue Scandal.

And now, in Matibag-esque fashion, we have the Francisco Rules: Pep squads are limited to 2 bass drums and one snare in NAS, and there must be absolutely no cheering during time-outs, with or without drums.

Pretty soon, I imagine we will have Raul Gonzales as UAAP Commissioner.

GreenArrows
07-15-2007, 07:03 PM
Was this approved by the UAAP Board en banc? How come DLSU and Adamson were not told as she DEMANDED that DLSU take out of the NAS our drums beyond the 2 bass and 1 snare drums. We were able to convince her to allow the PEP to just take down and not use the excess drums.

But the no cheering during timeouts? That's madness!

atenean_blooded
07-15-2007, 07:04 PM
Was this approved by the UAAP Board en banc?* How come DLSU and Adamson were not told as she DEMANDED that DLSU take out of the NAS our drums beyond the 2 bass and 1 snare drums.* We were able to convince her to allow the PEP to just take down and not use the excess drums.

But the no cheering during timeouts?* That's madness!


I'm just picking up from a thread in PEx, GA.

pablohoney
07-15-2007, 07:11 PM
i agree. its a really STUPID rule.

but then again, MRS. FRANSISCO never really appreciated what the YJs have done for the university. so im not surprised she came up with this freakishly lame rule. maybe she wants more canned music? for her ever favorite SDT? ;) one of these days, all hymns will be canned as well.

atenean_blooded
07-15-2007, 07:13 PM
Speaking of canned music, maybe pep squads can just bring speakers and sound systems which will play their drumbeats.

Baka gusto na rin ni Francisco ng canned cheers, canned applause, saka laugh tracks. ;D

tigerman
07-15-2007, 07:36 PM
I thought we have seen the last of Mr. Matibag.
Unfortunately, here comes a follower of him.

Next rules are the ff: bawal ng humataw sa bass/snare and bawal na ding isigaw ang cheers.

Anak ng tinola oh...



USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!

fujima04
07-15-2007, 07:38 PM
Speaking of canned music, maybe pep squads can just bring speakers and sound systems which will play their drumbeats.

Sa pagkakaalam ko, may nagdala na ng amplifier noong 90s. :D

jollibeeaddict
07-15-2007, 07:56 PM
pagpasensyahan niyo na si Mrs. Felicitas Francisco. wala naman sa mukha niya yung pagiging entertainer eh, ;D

atenean_blooded
07-15-2007, 08:03 PM
Pakisabi sa Babble na ganito na lang yung drum na dalhin:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Giant_Taiko_Drum_Nagoya.jpg/800px-Giant_Taiko_Drum_Nagoya.jpg

Kahit dalawa lang, oks na! ;D

Yun nga lang, hindi yata madadala sa drumline ng Ateneo yan. :(

jollibeeaddict
07-15-2007, 08:05 PM
^ naku, kapag ganyan, siguradong basag ang ear drums ni Mrs. Francisco. baka pati si Fr. De Sagun ay magreklamo na din. hehehe!

atenean_blooded
07-15-2007, 08:12 PM
^ naku, kapag ganyan, siguradong basag ang ear drums ni Mrs. Francisco. baka pati si Fr. De Sagun ay magreklamo na din. hehehe!


We'll drum them into submission, then.

muddatrucker
07-15-2007, 08:20 PM
But the no cheering during timeouts? That's madness!

No, this IS MRS. FRANCISCOOOOOOOOOO!

Seriously though, I thought cheering during timeouts was banned a long time ago but no one stopped cheering anyway?

And why are they imposing restrictions on pep cheering? Cheering is half the fun of watching a UAAP game.

jollibeeaddict
07-15-2007, 08:23 PM
malay mo naman. frustrated member ng Salinggawi Dance Troupe yang si Mrs. Francisco pero hindi nakapasa kaya ngayon lang gumaganti sa drummers at pep squads. ;D

muddatrucker
07-15-2007, 08:36 PM
malay mo naman. frustrated member ng Salinggawi Dance Troupe yang si Mrs. Francisco pero hindi nakapasa kaya ngayon lang gumaganti sa drummers at pep squads. ;D

May Salinggawin na ba noong 1850? ;D

atenean_blooded
07-15-2007, 09:01 PM
May Salinggawi sa planeta ni E.T.?


Phone.... home....

bluewing
07-15-2007, 09:46 PM
katarantaduhan yan.

BASKETBALL kaya ito.

ano akala nya rito, tennis? golf?

tarages, gagawa-gawa ng rule, WALA NAMAN ALAM SA BASKETBALL.

i mean, has she even PLAYED basketball or experienced it in any other significant way than just being involved with a member school? i'm sure she watches them, as it's part of her job. BUT DOES SHE UNDERSTAND IT? alam ba nya na it's more than just a contest na paramihan ng score sa huli?

so i say, and you can quote me on this, "F*CK HER AND HER STUPID RULE."

atenean_blooded
07-15-2007, 09:53 PM
katarantaduhan yan.

BASKETBALL kaya ito.

ano akala nya rito, tennis? golf?

tarages, gagawa-gawa ng rule, WALA NAMAN ALAM SA BASKETBALL.

i mean, has she even PLAYED basketball or experienced it in any other significant way than just being involved with a member school?* i'm sure she watches them, as it's part of her job. BUT DOES SHE UNDERSTAND IT? alam ba nya na it's more than just a contest na paramihan ng score sa huli?

so i say, and you can quote me on this, "F*CK HER AND HER STUPID RULE."


Manood na lang siya ng chess.

Dun, wala siyang maririnig na


HO! GET THAT PAWN! GET THAT PAWN! GET THAT PAWN!

mangtsito
07-15-2007, 10:06 PM
so i say, and you can quote me on this, "F*CK HER AND HER STUPID RULE."


Er, no thanks...hehehe.

lurkinggood
07-15-2007, 11:46 PM
so i say, and you can quote me on this, "F*CK HER AND HER STUPID RULE."


Er, no thanks...hehehe.


ahehehe... kaw na lang daw bluewing...

Dark Knight
07-16-2007, 12:02 AM
No cheering during timeouts?

Its like no eating during recess. ;D

Howard the Duck
07-16-2007, 12:07 AM
may cheering sa golf at tennis.

baka akala niya chess o pusoy ang labanan 8)

gfy
07-16-2007, 12:12 AM
It was reported that ABS-CBN requested this drum rule. Not Mrs. Francisco who is a nice lady. The no cheer rule during timeouts has been there for quite a while already.

Howard the Duck
07-16-2007, 12:14 AM
^so it were ateneans all along, eh?

kaya mas masaya panoorin ang NBA sa NBC kaysa ABC kasi hindi mo na maririnig ang boring commentary nina hubie brown and co. ;D

atenean_blooded
07-16-2007, 12:21 AM
Deleted.

atenean_blooded
07-16-2007, 12:23 AM
It was reported that ABS-CBN requested this drum rule. Not Mrs. Francisco who is a nice lady. The no cheer rule during timeouts has been there for quite a while already.


The old cheering rule was a cheering rule that prevented pep squads from hitting their drums during time-outs. It was not stupid enough to try and stop crowds from cheering.

Dark Knight
07-16-2007, 12:30 AM
Imagine the game is very exciting. The team scores to take a 1 point lead with two seconds to go. The crowd go crazy. The other team calls a time out. Then all of a suden, silence ills the venue.

Howard the Duck
07-16-2007, 12:31 AM
Imagine the game is very exciting. The team scores to take a 1 point lead with two seconds to go. The crowd go crazy. The other team calls a time out. Then all of a suden, silence ills the venue.
which means this will never be implemented, enforced or whatever transitive verb you can think of :D

jollibeeaddict
07-16-2007, 12:33 AM
tingnan lang natin kung ang bagong rule na yan ay masusunod come the Ateneo vs La Salle game in two weeks' time.

AnthonyServinio
07-16-2007, 02:42 AM
tarages, gagawa-gawa ng rule, WALA NAMAN ALAM SA BASKETBALL.

i mean, has she even PLAYED basketball or experienced it in any other significant way than just being involved with a member school?* i'm sure she watches them, as it's part of her job. BUT DOES SHE UNDERSTAND IT? alam ba nya na it's more than just a contest na paramihan ng score sa huli?

* * *Prof. Felicitas Francisco is a long time member of the UST PE Faculty.* Basketball runs in her family as she was married to the late Ben Francisco, a member of the legendary Philippine NT that placed Third in the 1954 Worlds in Brazil.* Their son, Gerard Francisco, is now a PBA player.

fujima04
07-16-2007, 02:57 AM
It was reported that ABS-CBN requested this drum rule. Not Mrs. Francisco who is a nice lady. The no cheer rule during timeouts has been there for quite a while already.


Now all of a sudden, we're barking at the wrong tree.

Although, I am not also in favor of the new rule but maybe we can give Mrs. Francisco due respect. Huwag tayo masyado padala sa mga emotions natin.

Like most of us is saying here, as if they could stop us from cheering during timeouts. It will just wont happen.

Kid Cubao
07-16-2007, 05:43 AM
in addition to what fujima04 posted, di nyo kaya naisip na baka mga head coaches mismo ang nag-request nito, na dahil sa liit ng NAS ay dumadagundong ang cheering at paluan kahit isang bass drum lang?

shyboy
07-16-2007, 07:34 AM
3 thread pages in 12 hours? Di naman masyado obvious na marami asar sa rule na yan. ;D

RuckuS
07-16-2007, 09:56 AM
just keep on cheering what can francisco do anyway? kickout everybody who cheers during timeouts? suspend the universities who's students cheer? its a lame rule made by a lame person and NOBODY is going to follow it. except maybe UST. love your own. :-X

GHRanger
07-16-2007, 10:16 AM
I agree. As far as cheering is concerned -- Just cheer... no one will stop you. Getting temporarily deaf and hoarse is part of the UAAP experience. :)

For DLSU, yung campus security namin na si Mang Jack ang sumesenyas sa PEP na mag stop ng drums sa timeouts. Pero hanggang drums and pep lang. Tuloy pa rin ang sigawan ng stands. Ano magagawa niya, graduate na kami?

If this is a legitimate request by ABS CBN, then let it stay that way -- a request distributed to the different schools. If this is a request by the coach, I don't think the Pep/Cheer teams are stupid not to follow.

2 base 1 snare rule? crazy... brings me back to grade school cheering.

bluewing
07-16-2007, 11:46 AM
tarages, gagawa-gawa ng rule, WALA NAMAN ALAM SA BASKETBALL.

i mean, has she even PLAYED basketball or experienced it in any other significant way than just being involved with a member school?* i'm sure she watches them, as it's part of her job. BUT DOES SHE UNDERSTAND IT? alam ba nya na it's more than just a contest na paramihan ng score sa huli?

* * *Prof. Felicitas Francisco is a long time member of the UST PE Faculty.* Basketball runs in her family as she was married to the late Ben Francisco, a member of the legendary Philippine NT that placed Third in the 1954 Worlds in Brazil.* Their son, Gerard Francisco, is now a PBA player.



touche.* ;D


nevertheless, stupid rule.

Sam Miguel
07-16-2007, 01:01 PM
tarages, gagawa-gawa ng rule, WALA NAMAN ALAM SA BASKETBALL.

i mean, has she even PLAYED basketball or experienced it in any other significant way than just being involved with a member school?* i'm sure she watches them, as it's part of her job. BUT DOES SHE UNDERSTAND IT? alam ba nya na it's more than just a contest na paramihan ng score sa huli?

* * *Prof. Felicitas Francisco is a long time member of the UST PE Faculty.* Basketball runs in her family as she was married to the late Ben Francisco, a member of the legendary Philippine NT that placed Third in the 1954 Worlds in Brazil.* Their son, Gerard Francisco, is now a PBA player.


And what pray tell does this prove about the adequacy / inadequacy of Mrs Francisco's total aggregate basketball aptitude?

It makes for a nice family tree but does not directly respond to BlueWing's comment as to how this so-called Francisco rule reduces the overall experience of watching, cheering in, and just plain getting involved in a UAAP basketball game.

Did her husband and son perhaps undertake some sort of feasibility study on her behalf and conclusively found out that "x" number of drums is sufficient to drum up (pun not intended) the fun and excitement factors attendant to UAAP basketball games?

rollingover
07-16-2007, 01:49 PM
I'm appealing to your decency gentlemen. Diss the rule because it really is dissable but please show some respect for Prof. Francisco.

One more thing, are we absolutely certain that she's the person to blame for this rule? I read in USTex that she didn't like it either. She's merely complying with the decision for compliance sake I presume.

nel
07-16-2007, 02:10 PM
It's important to determine if this is an official rule or just her personal initiative.

If it's an official rule, which body decided on it - the board? If so, they should have properly informed the respective schools and/or requested media to mention it. After all, the board is particularly good at issuing press releases when it suits them. What's the use of implementing a rule if the people affected are not aware of the rule because there never was any move to publicize it? Tsk tsk, and they're supposed to be educators. Oh wait, you don't need to go to school to learn that - it's a matter of common sense. If it's her personal initiative, is it in an official capacity? Either way, she has some explaining to do. If common courtesy dictates that we respect her as a school and league official, shouldn't common courtesy also dictate that the public be informed of any such rule prior to its implementation.

Common courtesy works both ways.

rollingover
07-16-2007, 02:32 PM
It's important to determine if this is an official rule or just her personal initiative.

If it's an official rule, which body decided on it - the board? If so, they should have properly informed the respective schools and/or requested media to mention it. After all, the board is particularly good at issuing press releases when it suits them. What's the use of implementing a rule if the people affected are not aware of the rule because there never was any move to publicize it? Tsk tsk, and they're supposed to be educators. Oh wait, you don't need to go to school to learn that - it's a matter of common sense. If it's her personal initiative, is it in an official capacity? Either way, she has some explaining to do. If common courtesy dictates that we respect her as a school and league official, shouldn't common courtesy also dictate that the public be informed of any such rule prior to its implementation.

Common courtesy works both ways.

I totally agree. Let's not be too hasty and put all the blame on Prof. Francisco until, like you've said, we've determined who's actually behind this rule. Backtracking on this thread, I realized that the threadstarter's source came from PEX, uhm PEX? Highly dubious.

Edit: About your other point ie that the public should be informed of this. Again, I completely agree. The board however is a body made up of several school reps and to put all the blame (for the late info dissemination) on Mrs. Francisco is, imo, undue.

bluewing
07-16-2007, 04:07 PM
in retrospect, maybe i was a wee bit harsh in my first post on this thread, particularly the last paragraph. pero i still maintain and reiterate everything else i said before that paragraph. and until everything else is cleared up, since she is still the face credited with this rule, wala syang magagawa kung sya ang sisihin ng mga tao. 8)

Wang-Bu
07-16-2007, 05:27 PM
Nung panahon namin nina Aldwin Manubag, Mar Morelos, et al, bwiset na bwiset kami sa tambol.

Mas bad trip kapag natural na mahina boses ng coach gaya nina Jimmy Mariano at Francis Rodriguez. Kahit may hand signals kayo iba pa din 'yung nagkakarinigan kayo sa court. Kaya mas gusto namin kapag panahon ng Martin at iba pang invitational, walang tambol.

Hindi na kasi sila distraction lang, talagang may pagkakataon at contexto kung saan direkta na nilang apektado ang laro. Kung ako lang masusunod mas gusto ko na sanang kami lang tapos 'yung kabilang koponan tapos coaches, committee at mga ref na lang. Tama na siguro na may ilan-ilan lang na miron. Totoong labanang pride na lang, wala ng distraction. Siempre hindi naman makatotohanan 'yan, malayo pa nga sa katotohanan.

Pero sa totoo lang: ano ba kinalaman ng tambol sa laro...?

Maiba ng konti: ganun din ang tingin ko sa pang-aasar at pang-aalaska ng player at koponan. Asar na asar ako sa mga heckler at mga wala ng alam gawin kundi mang-asar at mang-mura ng player, na akala mo tinawaran ng buong pagkatao ng player.

Ikaw ba nagpapalamon sa player para murahin sila? Kung kunwari si Chris Tiu ka at sa gitna ng laro nakipag-trash talk ka kay Paul Lee, OK lang 'yon, pareho kasi kayong mandirigma ng busluan, pero taragis naman, miron ka lang ikaw pa pinakamalakas mang-alaska ng player, na sagad sa buto pa mura mo, siguro naman hindi ka na pwedeng ituring na matinong tao niyan, ang tawag na sa iyo HAMBOG.

Anlakas mong mang-mura ng player sa laro, baka naman kapag kayong dalawa lang nagpang-abot sa labas na ng laro ni hindi mo malaman kung ano gagawin mong iwas o takbo

Tsaka sa totoo lang kung wala ka rin lang alam sa laro kundi mang-alaska manahimik ka na lang. Anlakas-lakas mong humirit baka ni minsan sa tanang buhay mo hindi ka nakatikim man lang mag-varsity, tapos kung makahirit ka, kung makamura ka ng player, parang ikaw lang ang nag-iisang eksperto sa daigdig ng basketball.

gfy
07-16-2007, 05:33 PM
Kung di ako nagkakamali, wala ata banda sa mga laro sa Amerika sa basketball. Sa football meron kasi malaki ang stadium.

shyboy
07-16-2007, 05:46 PM
^^ Wang-Bu, baka marami kang tinamaan dyan sa sinabi mo. ;) Ako hindi. Bait ako eh, cheer lang ako. ;D

muddatrucker
07-16-2007, 06:04 PM
Kung di ako nagkakamali, wala ata banda sa mga laro sa Amerika sa basketball. Sa football meron kasi malaki ang stadium.

Nagkakamali ka.

Howard the Duck
07-16-2007, 06:20 PM
Kung di ako nagkakamali, wala ata banda sa mga laro sa Amerika sa basketball. Sa football meron kasi malaki ang stadium.

Nagkakamali ka.
mas malaki ang indoor stadium sa USA. At home and away doon, one set of drums lang. ;D

nel
07-16-2007, 06:21 PM
Kung di ako nagkakamali, wala ata banda sa mga laro sa Amerika sa basketball. Sa football meron kasi malaki ang stadium.


I've seen a brass (horn) section in some US NCAA games. They have their own share of noisemakers.

gfy
07-16-2007, 06:51 PM
Hehe my mistake. Pero di gaya dito na walang katapusan ang tugtog ng drums. Ang cheering ay yun mga students behind the goal na lukso ng lukso when they cheer. At tama dual meet lang dun kaya di nakakabingi dahil home team lang ang may band. I was able to watch just one basketball game at the Haas Pavilion in UC Berkeley at di ko maalala na nabingi ako noon.

Tungkol sa heckling, ok lang kung ang player dirty player o mayabang. Pero huwag gawin masyadong personal.

tigerman
07-16-2007, 09:35 PM
I'm now starting to doubt if Mam Francisco is really the "initiator" of this rule.

First, some people from ustex said that according to Ap.com, ABS-CBN requested (or maybe demanded?) for this rules.

Second, Mam Francisco is aware that one of those most affected by this rule (at least to the drum limit rule) is the USTYJ. She's aware of the large no. of UST drums and how hard they have prepared for this season (imagine the numerous bass/snare skins, spare parts and the drums itself that would be put into waste).* Hence, I can't think of a good reason on her part to initiate this rule.




USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!

atenean_blooded
07-16-2007, 09:42 PM
Sana naman they come up with a rule that's actually intelligent.

Like a "Walang Gayahan ng Cheers at Drumbeats" rule.

nel
07-16-2007, 10:16 PM
Whether the rule is 'intelligent' or not, there is obviously a failure to communicate. How can those who drew up the rule expect anyone to comply, when the rule was never made public to anyone. Her manner of enforcing the rule also may leave something to be desired, but let's not shoot the messenger. She could do with some coaching or mentoring on interpersonal skills, though. If the rule was enacted by the board, then blame the board (so what else is new?).

i-point
07-17-2007, 09:46 AM
Sa mga personal na nanlalait kay Mrs. Francisco, babawiin niyo ba ang mga pinagsasabi ninyo kung napatunayan na hindi niya desisyon itong "stupid UAAP rule" na ito?

keempee
07-17-2007, 10:19 AM
Anlakas mong mang-mura ng player sa laro, baka naman kapag kayong dalawa lang nagpang-abot sa labas na ng laro ni hindi mo malaman kung ano gagawin mong iwas o takbo



parang david nye, hehehe. nagulpi tuloy ni harlan yu dati. magaling lang pag murahan at matapang lang pag may pumapagitna...talo pa pala ng babae kung sumuntok.

bluewing
07-17-2007, 10:30 AM
Sa mga personal na nanlalait kay Mrs. Francisco, babawiin niyo ba ang mga pinagsasabi ninyo kung napatunayan na hindi niya desisyon itong "stupid UAAP rule" na ito?



gladly.


;)

kenandmaybs
07-17-2007, 03:33 PM
hindi po abs-cbn ang nagdemand ng rule na ito....wala pong kaming kinalaman dito....

bluewing
07-17-2007, 05:25 PM
hindi po abs-cbn ang nagdemand ng rule na ito....wala pong kaming kinalaman dito....


ta-daaaa!

Dark Knight
07-17-2007, 09:16 PM
Sana naman they come up with a rule that's actually intelligent.

Like a "Walang Gayahan ng Cheers at Drumbeats" rule.


ONE BIG FIGHT!! GO ATENEO!! ;D

tigerman
07-17-2007, 09:42 PM
I had a talk earlier with Dr. Ricardo Matibag (Yeah he's the UAAP president back in 2005 when Adamson was the host and the same guy allegedly behind the rule putting the pep squads/drummers in the gen-ad of araneta). He told me that all UAAP rules including those non-basketball matters like the no cheering during timeouts, limiting the drums and putting the drummers in the gen-ad of araneta can't be decided upon by one person and take note not even the host. All rules needs the concurrence of the UAAP board.

This information I got from him is more or less true and has no shades of "kwentong barbero" since we all know that he was once part of the UAAP board.

Maybe it's about time we make an apology to Mam Francisco (I'm including myself) for rushing into a conclusion without checking on the real facts of the story. Sorry Mam.* ;D

The real question now should be, who voted for and against the above-mentioned rules?





USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!

atenean_blooded
07-17-2007, 11:43 PM
Regardless of who voted for or against,

the new rules are still STUPID.

tigerman
07-18-2007, 12:02 AM
Yes the rules are stupid but isn't it more stupid to label it as "Francisco rule" without any concrete proof?







USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!

atenean_blooded
07-18-2007, 01:46 AM
Yes the rules are stupid but isn't it more stupid to label it as "Francisco rule" without any concrete proof?







USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!


So we're going to try and deny that she was the one who was actively trying to enforce it?

rollingover
07-18-2007, 05:37 AM
So we're going to try and deny that she was the one who was actively trying to enforce it?


Like Bluewing mentioned in his earlier post, let's try not shoot the messenger.
Peace.

Mateen Cleaves
07-18-2007, 07:33 AM
Pero sa totoo lang: ano ba kinalaman ng tambol sa laro...?


Bakas ako diyan sa punto mo! :)

tigerman
07-18-2007, 10:12 AM
Yes the rules are stupid but isn't it more stupid to label it as "Francisco rule" without any concrete proof?







USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!


So we're going to try and deny that she was the one who was actively trying to enforce it?


I'm not saying we should deny it because there might be some truth to it.
But then again when a law/rule seems to be stupid, we must remember the old-aged principle DURA LEX SED LEX.
Besides, it was decided upon by the board so there was no choice but to implement it. Even a host cannot defy any rules concurred upon by the board.

Since Dr. Matibag has practically cleared Mam Francisco from any wrongdoings regarding those rules, it's about time we stop dragging her name as the one behind those rules.

I would like to apologize also to Dr. Matibag for blaming him during the 2005 fiasco of putting the drummers in the gen-ad area of the Big Dome. Sorry Sir. Good luck sa upcoming bar exams hehe.




USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!

atenean_blooded
07-18-2007, 08:18 PM
There has been nothing in this thread which establishes how Matibag may have "cleared" Francisco.

tigerman
07-18-2007, 11:30 PM
I mentioned already that I had a talk with the former UAAP president and that he explained to me how a rule could take effect, that is the need for the concurrence of the UAAP board (or majority wins as they say). Take note that not even the host can single-handedly push for the rule to take effect.

I don't know with you but it seems like you have set your mind that it was indeed Mam Francisco who's behind all this fiasco.




USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!

atenean_blooded
07-18-2007, 11:41 PM
I mentioned already that I had a talk with the former UAAP president and that he explained to me how a rule could take effect, that is the need for the concurrence of the UAAP board (or majority wins as they say). Take note that not even the host can single-handedly push for the rule to take effect.

I don't know with you but it seems like you have set your mind that it was indeed Mam Francisco who's behind all this fiasco.




USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!


I have little reason to believe Matibag, much less an alleged conversation with him.

What I think, of course, is irrelevant.

What's clear is that the rules are still stupid.

tigerman
07-18-2007, 11:52 PM
It's pretty obvious you don't wanna believe me much less Matibag.





USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!

atenean_blooded
07-19-2007, 06:13 AM
I think it's a foregone conclusion that it's pretty pointless to debate with me about this, since I'm obviously full of crap and bias and am just having too much of a ball flame-baiting.




(Yan ang honesty. Hehe.)



And besides, it's also a foregone conclusion that the rules are stupid. Enforcing them is even more stupid.



;D

Howard the Duck
07-19-2007, 07:12 AM
I think it's a foregone conclusion that it's pretty pointless to debate with me about this, since I'm obviously full of crap and bias and am just having too much of a ball flame-baiting.




(Yan ang honesty. Hehe.)



And besides, it's also a foregone conclusion that the rules are stupid. Enforcing them is even more stupid.



;D
Rules are rules. Deal with it.

fujima04
07-19-2007, 12:43 PM
I think it's a foregone conclusion that it's pretty pointless to debate with me about this, since I'm obviously full of crap and bias and am just having too much of a ball flame-baiting.




(Yan ang honesty. Hehe.)



And besides, it's also a foregone conclusion that the rules are stupid. Enforcing them is even more stupid.



;D


Yun naman pala...

There's no more reasons for this debate, afterall, most of us only see what we want to see.

Since we all agreed that the new rules sucks and stupid, I believed we can now all move on.

We cannot do anything but to deal with it since it is already being enforced by the UAAP. And I don't mind how each and everyone of us are going to deal with it. Either you go with or against with the flow, really doesn't matter anymore.

Kung matitigas na ang mga buto natin and we felt that we know better, nobody can stop us.

atenean_blooded
07-19-2007, 01:07 PM
Rules are rules. Deal with it.


How very Raul Gonzales-esque. ;D

Howard the Duck
07-19-2007, 03:25 PM
Rules are rules. Deal with it.


How very Raul Gonzales-esque. ;D
And don't get me started on the venues. The likes of michael jordan played in crappier venues while in tje college regular season.

hisbenz
07-19-2007, 05:33 PM
done with the litany of repeated words? come on, get out in the box of aquity. live with it.

atenean_blooded
07-19-2007, 10:32 PM
Rules are rules. Deal with it.


How very Raul Gonzales-esque.* ;D
And don't get me started on the venues. The likes of michael jordan played in crappier venues while in tje college regular season.


Sure. Let's all play in crap venues, because Michael Jordan played in crap venues. ;D

I just love that sort of reasoning. ;D

Howard the Duck
07-19-2007, 11:54 PM
Rules are rules. Deal with it.


How very Raul Gonzales-esque. ;D
And don't get me started on the venues. The likes of michael jordan played in crappier venues while in tje college regular season.


Sure. Let's all play in crap venues, because Michael Jordan played in crap venues. ;D

I just love that sort of reasoning. ;D

don't forget norman black played in a really crappy venue with only a maximum of 3,000+ spectators while playing in a jesuit school ;D.

atenean_blooded
07-20-2007, 12:19 AM
Rules are rules. Deal with it.


How very Raul Gonzales-esque.* ;D
And don't get me started on the venues. The likes of michael jordan played in crappier venues while in tje college regular season.


Sure. Let's all play in crap venues, because Michael Jordan played in crap venues. ;D

I just love that sort of reasoning. ;D

don't forget norman black played in a really crappy venue with only a maximum of 3,000+ spectators while playing in a jesuit school ;D.


Naks naman.

Sige pa!

Let's all just have UAAP games in some random baranggay kanto court, since lots of NBA players started out playing basketball in crappy, open-air, dingy locations!

Wala na ring uniform! Wala na ring sponsors!


YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

MABUHAY ANG BULOK NA VENUES!

Howard the Duck
07-20-2007, 12:04 PM
Rules are rules. Deal with it.


How very Raul Gonzales-esque. ;D
And don't get me started on the venues. The likes of michael jordan played in crappier venues while in tje college regular season.


Sure. Let's all play in crap venues, because Michael Jordan played in crap venues. ;D

I just love that sort of reasoning. ;D

don't forget norman black played in a really crappy venue with only a maximum of 3,000+ spectators while playing in a jesuit school ;D.


Naks naman.

Sige pa!

Let's all just have UAAP games in some random baranggay kanto court, since lots of NBA players started out playing basketball in crappy, open-air, dingy locations!

Wala na ring uniform! Wala na ring sponsors!


YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

MABUHAY ANG BULOK NA VENUES!
Don't spin my words, I said NCAA courts, not the playgrounds Stephon Marbury played at Coney Island :P

St. Joseph's University gym, was for one, not a barangay venue. I'd imagine it to be like the NAS, just without air-conditioning (try having aircon at Philadelphia) :D

BigBlue
07-20-2007, 12:14 PM
i'm pretty sure St. Joseph's University gym is not the firetrap that NAS is.

atenean_blooded
07-20-2007, 01:46 PM
Rules are rules. Deal with it.


How very Raul Gonzales-esque.* ;D
And don't get me started on the venues. The likes of michael jordan played in crappier venues while in tje college regular season.


Sure. Let's all play in crap venues, because Michael Jordan played in crap venues. ;D

I just love that sort of reasoning. ;D

don't forget norman black played in a really crappy venue with only a maximum of 3,000+ spectators while playing in a jesuit school ;D.


Naks naman.

Sige pa!

Let's all just have UAAP games in some random baranggay kanto court, since lots of NBA players started out playing basketball in crappy, open-air, dingy locations!

Wala na ring uniform! Wala na ring sponsors!


YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

MABUHAY ANG BULOK NA VENUES!
Don't spin my words, I said NCAA courts, not the playgrounds Stephon Marbury played at Coney Island :P

St. Joseph's University gym, was for one, not a barangay venue. I'd imagine it to be like the NAS, just without air-conditioning (try having aircon at Philadelphia) :D


MABUHAY ANG BULOK NA VENUES!

FORWARD, MEDIOCRITY!

Howard the Duck
07-20-2007, 07:32 PM
i'm pretty sure St. Joseph's University gym is not the firetrap that NAS is.
I'm pretty sure there can't be a fire at NAS. Tulo ng ulan pwede pa ;D

Dark Knight
07-21-2007, 12:48 PM
Now, will someone please propose a UAAP COLISEUM? All games will be played there. Full airconditioning, 10,000 seat capacity. Ample parking for the conyos (Ateneo and la Salle ;D), Footlong Kiosk around.

I suggest the FEU Quadrangle :P

bluewing
07-21-2007, 07:43 PM
Now, will someone please propose a UAAP COLISEUM? All games will be played there. Full airconditioning, 10,000 seat capacity. Ample parking for the conyos (Ateneo and la Salle* ;D), Footlong Kiosk around.

I suggest the FEU Quadrangle* :P



bakit di na lang sa loyola heights? daming extrang lupa doon! pwede naman nating abwasan yung soccer fields natin. ;D

Dark Knight
07-21-2007, 07:47 PM
Now, will someone please propose a UAAP COLISEUM? All games will be played there. Full airconditioning, 10,000 seat capacity. Ample parking for the conyos (Ateneo and la Salle* ;D), Footlong Kiosk around.

I suggest the FEU Quadrangle* :P



bakit di na lang sa loyola heights? daming extrang lupa doon! pwede naman nating abwasan yung soccer fields natin. ;D


Agree!! Basta no discrimination sa mga Jologs ha? ;D

muddatrucker
07-21-2007, 07:59 PM
Now, will someone please propose a UAAP COLISEUM? All games will be played there. Full airconditioning, 10,000 seat capacity. Ample parking for the conyos (Ateneo and la Salle ;D), Footlong Kiosk around.

I suggest the FEU Quadrangle :P



bakit di na lang sa loyola heights? daming extrang lupa doon! pwede naman nating abwasan yung soccer fields natin. ;D

Kulang ang parking...

mikol
07-21-2007, 09:35 PM
Hahahaha... ;D I agree with you Mr. Atenean_blooded. Nway, good luck to our Green Archers in toms. game.

Animo La Salle!!!

Howard the Duck
07-22-2007, 06:28 PM
Now, will someone please propose a UAAP COLISEUM? All games will be played there. Full airconditioning, 10,000 seat capacity. Ample parking for the conyos (Ateneo and la Salle ;D), Footlong Kiosk around.

I suggest the FEU Quadrangle :P



bakit di na lang sa loyola heights? daming extrang lupa doon! pwede naman nating abwasan yung soccer fields natin. ;D

Kulang ang parking...
not to mention ang layooooooooooooo ng "layo"la

muddatrucker
07-22-2007, 06:32 PM
Now, will someone please propose a UAAP COLISEUM? All games will be played there. Full airconditioning, 10,000 seat capacity. Ample parking for the conyos (Ateneo and la Salle ;D), Footlong Kiosk around.

I suggest the FEU Quadrangle :P



bakit di na lang sa loyola heights? daming extrang lupa doon! pwede naman nating abwasan yung soccer fields natin. ;D

Kulang ang parking...
not to mention ang layooooooooooooo ng "layo"la

Pero malayo rin para sa amin ang NAS at Cuneta. Dapat Araneta na lang para accessible sa lahat. ;D

Howard the Duck
07-22-2007, 06:34 PM
Now, will someone please propose a UAAP COLISEUM? All games will be played there. Full airconditioning, 10,000 seat capacity. Ample parking for the conyos (Ateneo and la Salle ;D), Footlong Kiosk around.

I suggest the FEU Quadrangle :P



bakit di na lang sa loyola heights? daming extrang lupa doon! pwede naman nating abwasan yung soccer fields natin. ;D

Kulang ang parking...
not to mention ang layooooooooooooo ng "layo"la

Pero malayo rin para sa amin ang NAS at Cuneta. Dapat Araneta na lang para accessible sa lahat. ;D
sige, ikaw magbayad ng renta :D

bluewing
07-24-2007, 01:05 AM
may bago na raw rule, effective thursday!


UAAP RULE No. 666* Series of 2007

NO CHEERING DURING GAMES

atenean_blooded
07-24-2007, 01:21 AM
may bago na raw rule, effective thursday!


UAAP RULE No. 666* Series of 2007

NO CHEERING DURING GAMES


O sige. Heckling na lang.

Dark Knight
07-24-2007, 08:59 AM
Might as well have a close door ballgame. No fans. ;D

atenean_blooded
07-24-2007, 11:20 AM
Magdadala kaya ng water cannon si Chuchi?

bluewing
07-24-2007, 04:53 PM
Magdadala kaya ng water cannon si Chuchi?




ipapabaril kayong lahat sa luneta.

flsfnoeraekadad
07-24-2007, 06:09 PM
Magdadala kaya ng water cannon si Chuchi?
Calibrated pre-emptive response? ;D

JonarSabilano
07-24-2007, 06:32 PM
Magdadala kaya ng water cannon si Chuchi?
Calibrated pre-emptive response? ;D

Communal Paligo sa Rally? ;D

bchoter
07-24-2007, 07:27 PM
^ game ako jan basta AdU game. Tabi kami ni andi

flsfnoeraekadad
07-24-2007, 07:39 PM
Magdadala kaya ng water cannon si Chuchi?
Calibrated pre-emptive response? ;D

Communal Paligo sa Rally? ;D
Game! ;D

Kaso wala na si Lia. :(

atenean_blooded
07-25-2007, 01:52 AM
Magdadala kaya ng water cannon si Chuchi?




ipapabaril kayong lahat sa luneta.


Sa Maynila na naman? Para malapit raw sa mga UAAP school?

Howard the Duck
07-25-2007, 09:05 AM
Magdadala kaya ng water cannon si Chuchi?




ipapabaril kayong lahat sa luneta.


Sa Maynila na naman? Para malapit raw sa mga UAAP school?
may host bang pinaglaro ang sarili nila sa malayong lugar? may nakita ka ba sa world cup na naglaro ang germany sa ghana? wala :D

atenean_blooded
07-25-2007, 10:54 AM
Yung La Salle. Mga laro sa Araneta. ::)

BigBlue
07-25-2007, 12:39 PM
Yung La Salle. Mga laro sa Araneta. ::)



pati sa ULTRA.

fujima04
07-25-2007, 01:23 PM
deleted

Howard the Duck
07-26-2007, 10:32 AM
Yung La Salle. Mga laro sa Araneta. ::)

la sallians own the araneta

MrGotti
07-26-2007, 11:33 AM
Yung La Salle. Mga laro sa Araneta. ::)

la sallians own the araneta


HUh? Atenista yata sila Mar Roxas diba?! ???

Howard the Duck
07-26-2007, 12:03 PM
Yung La Salle. Mga laro sa Araneta. ::)

la sallians own the araneta


HUh? Atenista yata sila Mar Roxas diba?! ???
teka muna, akala ko ba lasalista ang mga lasalista ???

atenean_blooded
07-27-2007, 02:16 AM
Yung La Salle. Mga laro sa Araneta. ::)

la sallians own the araneta


Irrelevant.

You said:

"may host bang pinaglaro ang sarili nila sa malayong lugar?"

I suppose it's far enough from Manila, since it's in QC, and is a few kilometers away from lovely Loyola Heights.

Fried Green Tomato
07-27-2007, 04:14 AM
Yung La Salle. Mga laro sa Araneta. ::)

la sallians own the araneta


The Aranetas own Araneta. Jorge Araneta is a La Sallian. He was there yesterday watching the game. Sen. Mar Roxas is also an Araneta since her mother, Judith Araneta Roxas, is an Araneta. So, it's safe to say that a La Sallian and an Atenean partly own Araneta.

Howard the Duck
07-27-2007, 10:03 AM
Yung La Salle. Mga laro sa Araneta. ::)

la sallians own the araneta


The Aranetas own Araneta. Jorge Araneta is a La Sallian. He was there yesterday watching the game. Sen. Mar Roxas is also an Araneta since her mother, Judith Araneta Roxas, is an Araneta. So, it's safe to say that a La Sallian and an Atenean partly own Araneta.
Take you for that info. I didn't know that. ;D







Yung La Salle. Mga laro sa Araneta. ::)

la sallians own the araneta


Irrelevant.

You said:

"may host bang pinaglaro ang sarili nila sa malayong lugar?"

I suppose it's far enough from Manila, since it's in QC, and is a few kilometers away from lovely Loyola Heights.

With distance comes expenses. But if you own an arena, there'll be less expenses. Ergo, if the English FA owned a stadium in France, they might as well do some events there for the 2012 Olympics.

And it's fun to travel from Sampaloc to Loyola. Di alam ng bus driver kung saan dadaan, ang sabi ko Philcoa, ang layo daw. It's a give and take relationship naman ah? We Manilenos travel to the BEG when QC schools host, then QC peeps travel to Manila when Manila schools host. It's a good balance, kaya lang 6 ang Mla. schools, QC 2 lang :P

(And not to mention the homecourt advantage of a particular school)

Buti na lang nga may LRT na papuntang Araneta. Malayo-layo pa kung wala pang LRT.

atenean_blooded
07-27-2007, 10:54 AM
With distance comes expenses. But if you own an arena, there'll be less expenses. Ergo, if the English FA owned a stadium in France, they might as well do some events there for the 2012 Olympics.

Irrelevant. We aren't talking about cost. We were talking about distance.

Try again.

Jump_Shooter
07-27-2007, 03:25 PM
You're both irrelevant. We're talking about the new rule limiting the number of drums. You guys are talking about the distances and costs of venues.

Howard the Duck
07-27-2007, 04:30 PM
You're both irrelevant. We're talking about the new rule limiting the number of drums. You guys are talking about the distances and costs of venues.
whatever you say you're honor ;D

BigBlue
08-01-2007, 04:14 PM
troll in the hizzouse!

nel
08-01-2007, 04:21 PM
malay mo naman. frustrated member ng Salinggawi Dance Troupe yang si Mrs. Francisco pero hindi nakapasa kaya ngayon lang gumaganti sa drummers at pep squads. ;D

May Salinggawin na ba noong 1850? ;D
>:(


kasi mga stupid kasi kayo, hindi n'yo alam kung bakit binabawal yung cheering pag timeouts.palibhasa mga utak biya kayo.


Tsk tsk. Is that the best you can do? Insults?

The only thing you've done is to cement the negative impression that you've created in this forum. Before you start name calling, you might want to make sure that what you say isn't applicable to you.

JonarSabilano
08-01-2007, 04:23 PM
To us, it's called "egging on the troops". That's why we have at least a semblance of organization when cheering.

To them, it's called "noise". Hence, the shrieks coming from every which way, sounding as if the crowd is being chased by (or is composed of) a mob of screaming faggots. No offense meant, of course, to the LGBT community.

Kind of separates us from the brutes. I actually want this rule implemented, but sparing the legit cheering and clamping down on the shrieks. Nakakarindi pakinggan, e.

BigBlue
08-01-2007, 04:36 PM
To us, it's called "egging on the troops". That's why we have at least a semblance of organization when cheering.

To them, it's called "noise". Hence, the shrieks coming from every which way, sounding as if the crowd is being chased by (or is composed of) a mob of screaming faggots. No offense meant, of course, to the LGBT community.

Kind of separates us from the brutes. I actually want this rule implemented, but sparing the legit cheering and clamping down on the shrieks. Nakakarindi pakinggan, e.


Ang isa pang ayaw ko yung mga tumitili sa mga tirang pumapasok kahit pumito na ang ref at nahinto na ang laban.

but then again, that has nothing to do with stupid uaap rule, but with stupid uaap fans er... uaap fans who do not know much about basketball.

JonarSabilano
08-01-2007, 04:40 PM
To us, it's called "egging on the troops". That's why we have at least a semblance of organization when cheering.

To them, it's called "noise". Hence, the shrieks coming from every which way, sounding as if the crowd is being chased by (or is composed of) a mob of screaming faggots. No offense meant, of course, to the LGBT community.

Kind of separates us from the brutes. I actually want this rule implemented, but sparing the legit cheering and clamping down on the shrieks. Nakakarindi pakinggan, e.


Ang isa pang ayaw ko yung mga tumitili sa mga tirang pumapasok kahit pumito na ang ref at nahinto na ang laban.

but then again, that has nothing to do with stupid uaap rule, but with stupid uaap fans er... uaap fans who do not know much about basketball.



Ikaw naman. Baka naghahanap lang ng continuation, whatever that is. ;D

Jump_Shooter
08-01-2007, 10:07 PM
I've deleted three of Marianne's posts. Marianne, please take time out to read the posting guidelines first before you post stuff like that. Consider this your first warning.

john_paul_manahan
08-05-2007, 10:23 AM
hmmm... that uaap board ruling dated august 2 and broadcast over the cuneta sure is ridiculous. it ludicrous. anyhow, it sure benefits those that DO NOT HAVE A TRUE CHEERING TRADITION.

bluewing
08-05-2007, 12:49 PM
... uaap fans who do not know much about basketball.




hakots, groupies and fangurlz/boyz/gayz

bchoter
08-05-2007, 01:56 PM
Can the uptight Mrs. Frnacisco implement a rule banning those gay "supporters" behind the goal post? They're an insult to school spirit.

pablohoney
08-05-2007, 02:12 PM
Can the uptight Mrs. Frnacisco implement a rule banning those gay "supporters" behind the goal post? They're an insult to school spirit.


agreed.

kaya nga medyo naintindihan ko yung isang ADMU supporter na nambato ng mineral water sa kanila. muntik na silang tamaan. kaya lang yung nambato eh sabay takbo at tago ... napakatapang. ;D

kapag na-ban sila, paano na ang ticketing network na ibang schools? ;)

bchoter
08-05-2007, 02:17 PM
^ Nyahahahaha... di bale minsan nakikinabang din tayo sa network na yan... lalo na sa pagreserve ng prime seats in the house :D

AnthonyServinio
08-06-2007, 02:22 AM
Can the uptight Mrs. Frnacisco implement a rule banning those gay "supporters" behind the goal post? They're an insult to school spirit.


agreed.

kaya nga medyo naintindihan ko yung isang ADMU supporter na nambato ng mineral water sa kanila. muntik na silang tamaan. kaya lang yung nambato eh sabay takbo at tago ... napakatapang. ;D

kapag na-ban sila, paano na ang ticketing network na ibang schools?* ;)

* * *I will also support this rule 100%.* However, I think it is more appropriate at the moment for the schools to police their own ranks and tell their players or their parents or agents not to contract the services of these gay professional cheerleaders.* Remember, the actions of these homos will reflect on the school they are cheering for and are fodder for the schools' bashers.* Furthermore, some of these fags have questionable character and backgrounds.

bluewing
08-06-2007, 03:08 AM
Furthermore, some of these fags have questionable character and backgrounds.


share! ;D

JonarSabilano
08-06-2007, 10:14 AM
I will also support this rule 100%.* However, I think it is more appropriate at the moment for the schools to police their own ranks and tell their players or their parents or agents not to contract the services of these gay professional cheerleaders.* Remember, the actions of these homos will reflect on the school they are cheering for and are fodder for the schools' bashers.* Furthermore, some of these fags have questionable character and backgrounds.



People actually pay for screamin' faggots to cheer for them? Geeeeeeeeeez.

("Whoa! Nice car, paaare!")

atenean_blooded
08-12-2007, 02:18 PM
Akala ko ba no cheering during timeouts?

E kahapon ilang beses binalewala yang rule na yan.

pablohoney
08-12-2007, 03:41 PM
Akala ko ba no cheering during timeouts?

E kahapon ilang beses binalewala yang rule na yan.


Ilang beses na-violate? Hindi ko na matandaan, masyado pa akong high sa pagkapanalo ng USTe. ;D
I was there yesterday but hindi ko narinig na nag drums ang DLSU or ang UST during timeouts or any other deadball situations. Cheer, yes particularly from Gang Green, with the help of their spank balloons. Pero even then halfhearted ang pagcheer. Walang gustong mapahiya na mapagsabihan eh. Tansta ko lang. ;)

atenean_blooded
08-12-2007, 04:04 PM
Akala ko ba no cheering during timeouts?

E kahapon ilang beses binalewala yang rule na yan.


Ilang beses na-violate? Hindi ko na matandaan, masyado pa akong high sa pagkapanalo ng USTe. ;D
I was there yesterday but hindi ko narinig na nag drums ang DLSU or ang UST during timeouts or any other deadball situations. Cheer, yes particularly from Gang Green, with the help of their spank balloons. Pero even then halfhearted ang pagcheer. Walang gustong mapahiya na mapagsabihan eh. Tansta ko lang. ;)


Walang drums. Pero bumabanat yung crowd, lalo na nung endgame.

Does the rule get suspended during the endgame? Or was there lack of criticism because Chuchi's team was playing?

bchoter
08-12-2007, 10:34 PM
^ blooded we were actually stopped by Mrs. Francisco in the end game. The crowd were cheering GO USTE (minus the YJ) when Mrs. Francisco, who was seated behind the UST bench and accross the Thomasian gallery motioned us to stop. Soon as the buzzer sounded (signaling the resumption of the game) Mrs. Francisco wave us on. Siguro kung may babae sa YJ eh malamang member si Mrs. Chuchi :D

atenean_blooded
08-12-2007, 10:42 PM
Whattastupid rule ;D

john_paul_manahan
08-12-2007, 10:46 PM
haynaku... ;D

eightyfiver
08-13-2007, 08:13 AM
Akala ko ba no cheering during timeouts?

E kahapon ilang beses binalewala yang rule na yan.


Ilang beses na-violate? Hindi ko na matandaan, masyado pa akong high sa pagkapanalo ng USTe. ;D
I was there yesterday but hindi ko narinig na nag drums ang DLSU or ang UST during timeouts or any other deadball situations. Cheer, yes particularly from Gang Green, with the help of their spank balloons. Pero even then halfhearted ang pagcheer. Walang gustong mapahiya na mapagsabihan eh. Tansta ko lang. ;)


Walang drums. Pero bumabanat yung crowd, lalo na nung endgame.

Does the rule get suspended during the endgame? Or was there lack of criticism because Chuchi's team was playing?


I thought name-calling has no place here :-[

During the said end game, the mood was celebratory. To keep quiet would be an inappropriate affect. There was a pendulum swing of emotions on both sides. But just like what pablo and bchoter has said, the drummers of both schools would stop once they get aware that there's a timeout and the crowd follows suit.

There's respect on both side. More so, after Bro. Bernie Oca publicly apologized to Mrs. Francisco during the first round encounter for the booing she received on a previous game. A sincere act of humility that Mrs. Francisco and the rest of the Thomasian community truly appreciate. A perfect example to both sides, that it wouldn't make you less of a man if you would admit your mistake and apologize.

pablohoney
08-13-2007, 03:20 PM
Akala ko ba no cheering during timeouts?

E kahapon ilang beses binalewala yang rule na yan.


Ilang beses na-violate? Hindi ko na matandaan, masyado pa akong high sa pagkapanalo ng USTe. ;D
I was there yesterday but hindi ko narinig na nag drums ang DLSU or ang UST during timeouts or any other deadball situations. Cheer, yes particularly from Gang Green, with the help of their spank balloons. Pero even then halfhearted ang pagcheer. Walang gustong mapahiya na mapagsabihan eh. Tansta ko lang. ;)


Walang drums. Pero bumabanat yung crowd, lalo na nung endgame.

Does the rule get suspended during the endgame? Or was there lack of criticism because Chuchi's team was playing?


I thought name-calling has no place here :-[

During the said end game, the mood was celebratory. To keep quiet would be an inappropriate affect. There was a pendulum swing of emotions on both sides. But just like what pablo and bchoter has said, the drummers of both schools would stop once they get aware that there's a timeout and the crowd follows suit.

There's respect on both side. More so, after Bro. Bernie Oca publicly apologized to Mrs. Francisco during the first round encounter for the booing she received on a previous game. A sincere act of humility that Mrs. Francisco and the rest of the Thomasian community truly appreciate. A perfect example to both sides, that it wouldn't make you less of a man if you would admit your mistake and apologize.


Hats off, my friend.
You took the words out of my mouth (naks!). ;D
I see no need to reply further. ;)

atenean_blooded
08-15-2007, 06:15 PM
I thought name-calling has no place here :-[

During the said end game, the mood was celebratory. To keep quiet would be an inappropriate affect. There was a pendulum swing of emotions on both sides. But just like what pablo and bchoter has said, the drummers of both schools would stop once they get aware that there's a timeout and the crowd follows suit.

Ah, but every moment can be deemed celebratory. What you are contemplating here is selective application of the rules without any substantial reason or distinction to justify it.

Howard the Duck
08-15-2007, 10:18 PM
nang walang away mag overcheer na lang tayo ;D

atenean_blooded
08-15-2007, 10:40 PM
Hindi pwede, Howard. May 5 minute time limit ;D

Howard the Duck
08-15-2007, 10:50 PM
Hindi pwede, Howard. May 5 minute time limit ;D
dapat UE ang pinapagalitan ni "mama tiger*"


* wag nang chuchi, mahiya naman kayo :P

davrub2003
08-16-2007, 12:40 PM
katarantaduhan yan.

BASKETBALL kaya ito.

ano akala nya rito, tennis? golf?

tarages, gagawa-gawa ng rule, WALA NAMAN ALAM SA BASKETBALL.

i mean, has she even PLAYED basketball or experienced it in any other significant way than just being involved with a member school?* i'm sure she watches them, as it's part of her job. BUT DOES SHE UNDERSTAND IT? alam ba nya na it's more than just a contest na paramihan ng score sa huli?

so i say, and you can quote me on this, "F*CK HER AND HER STUPID RULE."


bluewing, please don't use profane language in the forum.*
but if you really need to, just spell it out:* "FACK HER AND HER STUPID RULE."

bluetruck
08-27-2007, 06:29 PM
it's a stupid rule from a stupid professor. kawawa naman ang taga uste. they have to deal with such a stupid person day in and day out.

pablohoney
08-27-2007, 07:01 PM
it's a stupid rule from a stupid professor. kawawa naman ang taga uste.* they have to deal with such a stupid person day in and day out.


Easy, men. Baka ma-high blood kayo. ;D
Anyway, it's not everyday that we see somebody standing up to uphold the rules the whole UAAP Board approved, even if the rule is indeed, STUPID.
It was just unfortunate that she chose to do it against ADMU. ;D

Sa Thursday, it's going to be UST-ADMU.
Both teams need the W.
May the best team win.
Good luck sa pagcheer, and for some, sa pagjeer. ;D

Howard the Duck
08-27-2007, 08:46 PM
it's a stupid rule from a stupid professor. kawawa naman ang taga uste. they have to deal with such a stupid person day in and day out.
di ko siya naging prof ;D, so i didn't deal with her day in and day out :P

fujima04
08-27-2007, 10:30 PM
Ako din. hindi ko naging prof si Mam F. Hindi naman ata siya nagtuturo.

Anyway, gotta agree with pablohoney. He said it all.

eightyfiver
08-27-2007, 11:04 PM
How I wish I was handled by Mrs. Francisco. She's an epitome of courage under fire.

bluetruck
08-28-2007, 03:14 PM
Ako din. hindi ko naging prof si Mam F. Hindi naman ata siya nagtuturo.



ang suerte mo pala!

danny
08-28-2007, 04:01 PM
katarantaduhan yan.

BASKETBALL kaya ito.

ano akala nya rito, tennis? golf?

tarages, gagawa-gawa ng rule, WALA NAMAN ALAM SA BASKETBALL.

i mean, has she even PLAYED basketball or experienced it in any other significant way than just being involved with a member school?* i'm sure she watches them, as it's part of her job. BUT DOES SHE UNDERSTAND IT? alam ba nya na it's more than just a contest na paramihan ng score sa huli?

so i say, and you can quote me on this, "F*CK HER AND HER STUPID RULE."


bluewing, please don't use profane language in the forum.*
but if you really need to, just spell it out:* "FACK HER AND HER STUPID RULE."


Anong rule ba to? Yung bawal mag-cheer? Sino bang pasimuno niyan? ;D

tigerman
08-28-2007, 09:47 PM
I repeat a UAAP proposal needs the concurrence of a majority of the board before becoming a rule.
Is that hard to understand? Or maybe some are trying to look cool by joining the "Anti-Francisco" bandwagon.

Pathetic.




USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!

pablohoney
08-28-2007, 10:02 PM
^ Ay, sorry.
MAJORITY lang pala.
Sorry ha?
Tsaka hindi ko hate si Mrs. F.





Konti lang. ;D
Kase hindi niya kame pinapansin nuon eh.
Kelangan daw recognized muna daw ng OSACS. ;D ;D ;D

Howard the Duck
08-28-2007, 10:12 PM
to answer danny's question, the pasimuno is the board.

tigerman
08-28-2007, 10:17 PM
^ Ay, sorry.
MAJORITY lang pala.
Sorry ha?
Tsaka hindi ko hate si Mrs. F.





Konti lang. ;D
Kase hindi niya kame pinapansin nuon eh.
Kelangan daw recognized muna daw ng OSACS. ;D ;D ;D


I sent you a pm in ustex. *;D




USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!

atenean_blooded
08-29-2007, 12:19 AM
Katangahan talaga yang rule na yan.

danny
08-29-2007, 12:24 AM
Katangahan talaga yang rule na yan.


Of course, blooded. Is there a chance the UAAP Board will reverse this rule?* ;)

danny
08-29-2007, 12:40 AM
to answer danny's question, the pasimuno is the board.


Will* the board reverse this rule, Howard the Duck?

Guys guys. I'm just asking. Huwag mainit ulo.

tigerman,

It was a very simple question. Cool ka lang.

Howard the Duck
08-29-2007, 12:44 AM
to answer danny's question, the pasimuno is the board.


Will the board reverse this rule, Howard the Duck?

Guys guys. I'm just asking. Huwag mainit ulo.

tigerman,

It was a very simple question. Cool ka lang.
ewan

danny
08-29-2007, 12:45 AM
to answer danny's question, the pasimuno is the board.


Will* the board reverse this rule, Howard the Duck?

Guys guys. I'm just asking. Huwag mainit ulo.

tigerman,

It was a very simple question. Cool ka lang.
ewan


I see.

danny
08-29-2007, 12:58 AM
I repeat a UAAP proposal needs the concurrence of a majority of the board before becoming a rule.
Is that hard to understand? Or maybe some are trying to look cool by joining the "Anti-Francisco" bandwagon.
Pathetic.




USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!


Nasty reaction,* tigerman. This is uncalled for. I also came from La Salle so don't you accuse me of trying to be cool around here.

pablohoney
08-29-2007, 01:33 AM
Perhaps mas katangahan ang pagkibit-balikat ng mga nakakatanda na dapat ay mamuno sa pag-"police" ng kanilang hanay. >:(

and I'm talking about the UAAP board representatives. ;D

@ Tigerman: Read your PM. Notice there are a lot of ;D in my post.

;D ;D ;D

danny
08-29-2007, 01:42 AM
I expected more from you tigerman and pablohoney at least here in gameface.

I guess I'm wrong. I'm out of here lest I be accused again of trying to look cool. ???

atenean_blooded
08-29-2007, 01:49 AM
Katangahan talaga yang rule na yan.


Of course, blooded. Is there a chance the UAAP Board will reverse this rule?* ;)


I really don't know, Danny. This is the same Board that came up with such stupid things as the Soc Rivera rule, and which countenanced another act of utter stupidity, namely the selection of NAS as a gaming venue.

But then again, this is also the same Board which righteously and rightfully dismissed the UST petition that Duncil suddenly be included in the UST line-up, as well as the protest of La Salle, which it suspended in 2006.

Exciting, ano? ;D

danny
08-29-2007, 03:13 AM
Perhaps mas katangahan ang pagkibit-balikat ng mga nakakatanda na dapat ay mamuno sa pag-"police" ng kanilang hanay. >:(

and I'm talking about the UAAP board representatives. ;D

@ Tigerman: Read your PM. Notice there are a lot of* ;D in my post.

;D ;D ;D


Off Topic:

We are doing our very best in Bedista.com. If we failed your standard, rest assured that we will work harder.

I just hope you guys are also policing your own. Gameface is the only serious neutral alternative for hardcore supporters in cyberspace. If we lose this, we are back to the Dark Ages.

Fried Green Tomato
08-29-2007, 03:47 AM
Katangahan talaga yang rule na yan.


Of course, blooded. Is there a chance the UAAP Board will reverse this rule?* ;)


As to the chance of uaap board reversing this rule, it's still possible... maybe when it's the chance of sympathetic new host takes over the uaap. Maybe next year (i think UP as the host) or years from now.

But since UST is the host this season and Mrs Francisco is a strong advocate of this rule, i don't see any chance of this rule being reversed for the meantime.

The uaap board is unpredictable as ever. Remember how many times they changed the limit for players in a team --- from 15 (i think there's a condition that only 14 can play), to 14 then 16. It's always up to the whims & caprices of the board whenever they make a rule.

Pardon my ignorance (maybe the answer is somewhere in this thread), but who made the proposal for this rule?

eightyfiver
08-29-2007, 07:52 AM
I just hope you guys are also policing your own. Gameface is the only serious neutral alternative for hardcore supporters in cyberspace. If we lose this, we are back to the Dark Ages.




Sorry sir Danny. As long as we read words like "stupid, tanga" and other namecalling, this forum is no different. I think we can express our disagreement without using derogatory remarks. But so far you've been good sir and I highly respect you for that. :)

In any issue, there are always 2 sides. And most of the times, the majority are just silent.

danny
08-29-2007, 08:06 AM
I just hope you guys are also policing your own. Gameface is the only serious neutral alternative for hardcore supporters in cyberspace. If we lose this, we are back to the Dark Ages.




Sorry sir Danny. As long as we read words like "stupid, tanga" and other namecalling, this forum is no different. I think we can express our disagreement without using derogatory remarks. But so far you've been good sir and I highly respect you for that. :)

In any issue, there are always 2 sides. And most of the times, the majority are just silent.


No problem eightyfiver.

Actually, I should not have posted my queston in reaction to Howard the Duck's pang-iinis. I guess I should have ignored the "desperadong manalo ang San Beda" side comment.

We Bedans have made our peace with Ateneans and Letranites here in gameface. The bickering between La Salle and San Beda has subsided. It is in everyone's interest to keep gameface sane.

We have nothing against UST.

LION
08-29-2007, 08:15 AM
And I am trying my darn best to keep my fellow Bedans from retorting to attacks by UST posters.

toti_mendiola
08-29-2007, 09:02 AM
I just hope you guys are also policing your own. Gameface is the only serious neutral alternative for hardcore supporters in cyberspace. If we lose this, we are back to the Dark Ages.




Sorry sir Danny. As long as we read words like "stupid, tanga" and other namecalling, this forum is no different. I think we can express our disagreement without using derogatory remarks. But so far you've been good sir and I highly respect you for that. :)

In any issue, there are always 2 sides. And most of the times, the majority are just silent.


No problem eightyfiver.

The bickering between La Salle and San Beda has subsided.

We have nothing against UST.



As espoused by our very own manong Stardust.

tigerman
08-29-2007, 09:11 AM
@ Danny - Sorry for that "nasty" post of mine. I probably thought that you were flamebaiting when you threw that question when in fact everybody's aware that Mam Francisco is tagged as the initiator of this rule. And sadly without any concrete proof to back up this malicious accusation.

I'm sorry. And I have nothing against you or your fellow Bedans for that matter.





USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!

davrub2003
08-29-2007, 01:04 PM
@ Danny - Sorry for that "nasty" post of mine. I probably thought that you were flamebaiting when you threw that question when in fact everybody's aware that Mam Francisco is tagged as the initiator of this rule. And sadly without any concrete proof to back up this malicious accusation.

I'm sorry. And I have nothing against you or your fellow Bedans for that matter.





USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!


tigerman, you also don't have proof that ms. francisco DID NOT come up with this rule. anyway, i think most posters were against the rule, not necessarily against ms. francisco. i bet, when they face her, these people will be as courteous as anyone can be.

i am sometimes also guilty of attacking the person rather than the act of the person.

pablohoney
08-29-2007, 01:59 PM
Perhaps mas katangahan ang pagkibit-balikat ng mga nakakatanda na dapat ay mamuno sa pag-"police" ng kanilang hanay. >:(

and I'm talking about the UAAP board representatives. ;D

@ Tigerman: Read your PM. Notice there are a lot of* ;D in my post.

;D ;D ;D


Off Topic:

We are doing our very best in Bedista.com. If we failed your standard, rest assured that we will work harder.

I just hope you guys are also policing your own. Gameface is the only serious neutral alternative for hardcore supporters in cyberspace. If we lose this, we are back to the Dark Ages.




Danny, let me say this to you straight:

My post that you quoted above ... I wasn't even thinking of SBC/bedista.com when I posted. I don't know why you replied quite harshly. I haven't been in bedista.com for ages, not since SBC won the championship last year.
I was pertaining to some UAAP Board members, who instead of "policing" their alumni, instead chose to sit still and let an old lady do his work. >:(

Misunderstanding lang, ba. ;D

Trust me. I continue to hold SBC in high esteem, as my very own father was a former Red Cub himself.. actually was part of the Training Pool of SBC back in the early '60s, before he was "kicked-out" for starting a riot (ang pasimunong nambutas ng dingding and starting a riot na pinasimulan niya when he was in 2nd year HS.). Anyway, I'm soooooooooo offtopic here.

Danny, again, my apologies. :'(
Walang kinalaman ang SBC/bedista.com sa aking komento.


Peace, okay? ;D

pablohoney
08-29-2007, 02:13 PM
And I am trying my darn best to keep my fellow Bedans from retorting to attacks by UST posters.*


Please.. do continue your darn best. ;D
I haven't been at bedista.com in quite a long time, and I didn't know there are Thomasians who attack SBC.
Pagpasensyahan na lang natin sila. On our part, we'd continue to police our own.

Thanks. ;)

tigerman
08-29-2007, 03:09 PM
@ Danny - Sorry for that "nasty" post of mine. I probably thought that you were flamebaiting when you threw that question when in fact everybody's aware that Mam Francisco is tagged as the initiator of this rule. And sadly without any concrete proof to back up this malicious accusation.

I'm sorry. And I have nothing against you or your fellow Bedans for that matter.





USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!


tigerman, you also don't have proof that ms. francisco DID NOT come up with this rule.* anyway, i think most posters were against the rule, not necessarily against ms. francisco.* i bet, when they face her, these people will be as courteous as anyone can be.

i am sometimes also guilty of attacking the person rather than the act of the person.*


Yes, I do have a proof. He's Dr. Ricardo Matibag of Adamson (the former UAAP president back in 2005).
Of course on the premise that he's telling the truth. But I don't see any reason for him to say otherwise.




USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!

dark_seid
08-29-2007, 04:37 PM
back to topic:

so if the crowd continues to cheer during a timeout, what's the penalty??

*i've read through the whole thread and i still don't understand what happens if the rule is broken

eightyfiver
08-29-2007, 10:22 PM
^ Actually there's none. No technical. No fines. They'll just be told to stop. At least, after seeing much of this rule being violated, the school involved were just requested to stop. I know your next question would be, so what's the fuss? I also don't know. ;D

It is just a reflection of stubborness on the school who cannot follow. That's it.

bananafrap
08-29-2007, 11:26 PM
^ Actually there's none. No technical. No fines. They'll just be told to stop. At least, after seeing much of this rule being violated, the school involved were just requested to stop. I know your next question would be, so what's the fuss? I also don't know. ;D

It is just a reflection of stubborness on the school who cannot follow. That's it.


let's just say na kj ang ust (or school officials ng uste or kun sino mang school yan, sabi nyo nga Adamson eh hehe) or ayaw nila na maovercheer-an sila!ö kc hello ang tagal na ng UAAP at ng NCAA eh, wala nman problema kahit magcheer/maingay ang mga schools during time-outs eh. as far as i know, naririnig nman ng mga players un sinasabi ng coach nila eh kahit maingay ang crowd. hehe! ngaun ang tanong jan eh, next year ba pag iba na ang host may ganun pa ring rule? :D

bananafrap
08-29-2007, 11:46 PM
I repeat a UAAP proposal needs the concurrence of a majority of the board before becoming a rule.
Is that hard to understand? Or maybe some are trying to look cool by joining the "Anti-Francisco" bandwagon.

Pathetic.




USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!


hmmm, majority? pano ba nasasabi na majority na? kc tingnan mo nman ung rule#IX eh pinalitan na pla naging rule#VII na sha na HINDI ALAM NG LA SALLE. i wonder why hindi nmin alam un khit mga board reps nmin eh? pero majority vote dn un bago napalitan?

i'm not trying to be cool and i'm certainly not part of the bandwagon, pero i don't like mrs. francisco at all. di ko kc napanood un start ng dlsu-admu game eh pero nun nalaman ko na she was booooooed pla because she stopped the blue and green gallery who were excited (which is an understatement) for the game to begin. hehe i'm not saying it was right or anything, pero dba, people were excited! what's wrong with that?? plus it's a free country! ;D

pablohoney
08-30-2007, 12:21 AM
I repeat a UAAP proposal needs the concurrence of a majority of the board before becoming a rule.
Is that hard to understand? Or maybe some are trying to look cool by joining the "Anti-Francisco" bandwagon.

Pathetic.




USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!


hmmm, majority? pano ba nasasabi na majority na? kc tingnan mo nman ung rule# IX eh pinalitan na pla naging rule # VII na HINDI ALAM NG LA SALLE. i wonder why hindi nmin alam un? pero majority vote dn un bago napalitan?


Sa kaso naman ng DLSU, kung binasa lang at inunawa ang laman ng patakaran, walang problema. Eh magko-quote lang ng provision, mali pa ang na-quote. :)

At saka kaya nga Board ang tawag. Unless ang patutunguan ng punto mo eh may "nagkokontrol" na isang tao, at pinapalabas mo na "tuta" at sunod-sunuran lang ang ibang Board members.... Otherwise, as in most organization, votation ang norm.

Kumbaga hindi naman kailangang UNANIMOUS ang desisyon para maipasa ang resolution. Kundi simpleng MAJORITY lang.

At hindi reason ang HINDI ALAM -- The simple fact that DLSU continues to be part of UAAP, it has a responsibility to know the governing rules, and consequently, to obey it. Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.

Anyway, since it is something that was approved by majority of the board, ALL member schools must obey it. Unless next year the new host school chooses to "repeal" or change the rule, etc.. it continues to be in effect, at least for the remainder of this season.

We all know that the UAAP Board has the tendency to flip-flop on rules/policies. No need to elaborate on that.
Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the rule is "informally" scrapped (READ: not enforced) come Final Four and beyond.
What strikes me as funny is that the rule has been enforced even before, yet it is only now that people are reacting violently.

Again, from a pep squad member's point of view,or any hardcore basketball fanatic for that matter, I still say the rule is STUPID. But then again, the UAAP Board must have good reasons to enforce it. ;)

bananafrap
08-30-2007, 12:35 AM
^ excuse me, it's not just a matter of misquoting the wrong provision, we didn't know it was changed. kaya nga nagulat kmi dba. hindi lng un rule number ang mali eh, the rule itself. iba na un rule. kaya nga ang alam namin na penalty for the violation ay forfeiture eh. in this case iba na pla un rule tas wala dn penalty. gaya sa no cheering during timeouts rule, a rule with no corresponding penalty (ano kayang klaseng rule yan ano, you can't say people are just stubborn for not following the rule eh wala ngang penalty eh - ano ba yan, COMMANDMENT? kalokohan!). and please don't say "The simple fact that DLSU continues to be part of UAAP, it has a responsibility to know the governing rules, and consequently, to obey it. Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith." because our board reps were asking for a new copy of the rulebook (obviously because we were suspended for a year so we didn't have one) which the Board did not give us so we're not giving excuses as to why we didn't know the new rule, we really didn't know because we were not given a copy. i wonder why again?

...and what would be the good reason for the UAAP to have a rule like that when we (including you) finds the said rule to be STUPID! what could it be? i really would like to know.ü

pablohoney
08-30-2007, 01:04 AM
^ excuse me, it's not just a matter of misquoting the wrong provision, we didn't know it was changed. kaya nga nagulat kmi dba. hindi lng un rule number ang mali eh, the rule itself. iba na un rule. kaya nga ang alam namin na penalty for the violation ay forfeiture eh. in this case iba na pla un rule tas wala dn penalty. gaya sa no cheering during timeouts rule, a rule with no corresponding penalty. and please don't say "The simple fact that DLSU continues to be part of UAAP, it has a responsibility to know the governing rules, and consequently, to obey it. Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith." because our board reps were asking for the new copy of the rulebook which the Board did not give us so we're not giving excuses as to why we didn't know the new rule, we really didn't know because we were not given a copy. i wonder why again?

...and what would be the good reason for the UAAP to have a rule like that when we (including you) finds the said rule to be STUPID! what could it be? i really would like to know.ü


I didn't know that the UAAP Board is obliged to ask for our opinions regarding the righteousness/stupidity of the rules/policies it is going to pass. ;D

Anyway, ang sinasabi mo is CONTRARY to what I know, read and heard, regarding the so-called CHANGING OF THE RULES.
Ang pagkaalam ko, DLSU protested, pero it quoted / cited the wrong provision, hence their appeal/protest was denied. Ang presumption palagi, alam mo ang batas.

Pare/mare, your "it's DLSU versus the whole world" theme is already stale.

As per your last question, maybe you should ask the UAAP Board themselves. Because I can't answer for them.

bananafrap
08-30-2007, 01:04 AM
What strikes me as funny is that the rule has been enforced even before, yet it is only now that people are reacting violently.



let's just say wala nman kasing ume-epal noon while the crowd is enjoying the moment eh magsasalita sa mikropono at papatigilin ang mga tao sa pagsasaya dba! everytime it's a La Salle-Ateneo game the crowd starts to cheer already even if the first game is not yet finished kaya! lalo pa nun game na yun dba kc we were absent for a year kaya intense tlga un! well i guess you could never understand the feeling... kung hindi ka nman La Sallista at Atenista eh!ö hey, i don't mean anything by it. ibig ko lng sabihin di nyo cguro tlga alam what it is pag La Salle at Ateneo ang magkalaban eh hehe!ü ;D

bananafrap
08-30-2007, 01:10 AM
Ang presumption palagi, alam mo ang batas.



kaya nga in this case dahil hindi binigay ang NEW rulebook sa min na hinihingi ng board reps nmin eh mali ung alam naming rules! so pano nmin malalaman ang batas kung ganun nga?? what i'm saying is why o why the UAAP Board failed to give us the new rulebook? isn't it just right that everyone knows if there are amendments to the rules especially if there's a school who did not play for the league for a year and so they were not aware of new things being implemented when they came back? i think Ateneo dn didn't know that there's no penalty pala sa violation na un.. hehe naisip ko lng kc pde naman na un agad sabihin nila eh na walang patutunguhan un protesta nmin dahil wala ngang penalty! hehe siguro nman alam nila un dba nagtaka lng ako ngaun bakit hindi un ang isa sa mga sinabi nila sa min, ohwell. come to think of it, ilang araw dn un pinagisipan ni comish Ed Cordero kung ano un desisyon nya na 'acceptable' to both schools eh un lng nman pla un, walang penalty! hehe anyway tapos na 'tong issue na 'to wag na balikan hehe sori kun nabalikan ko na-connect ko lng nman kc!ö

pablohoney
08-30-2007, 01:43 AM
What strikes me as funny is that the rule has been enforced even before, yet it is only now that people are reacting violently.



let's just say wala nman kasing ume-epal noon while the crowd is enjoying the moment eh magsasalita sa mikropono at papatigilin ang mga tao sa pagsasaya dba! everytime it's a La Salle-Ateneo game the crowd starts to cheer already even if the first game is not yet finished kaya! lalo pa nun game na yun dba kc we were absent for a year kaya intense tlga un! well i guess you could never understand the feeling... kung hindi ka nman La Sallista at Atenista eh!ö hey, i don't mean anything by it. ibig ko lng sabihin di nyo cguro tlga alam what it is pag La Salle at Ateneo ang magkalaban eh hehe!ü* ;D


Trust me, I take no offense.
I'm perfectly happy being a SIMPLE Thomasian. ;)

bananafrap
08-30-2007, 01:47 AM
Trust me, I take no offense.
I'm perfectly happy being a SIMPLE Thomasian. ;)



siguro nman dibaü hehe pinangunahan ko na kc baka iba isipin ng mga tao dun sa sinabi ko eh, i'm just talking about the game and how intense it is for us and nothing more.. ;D

i'm also perfectly happy being a simple La Sallian.ü

danny
08-30-2007, 02:15 AM
And I am happy to have gamefacers like you guys.
My apologies also Thomasians. Miscommunication.

I'm out of here. ;D

atenean_blooded
08-30-2007, 04:24 AM
Ang presumption palagi, alam mo ang batas.



kaya nga in this case dahil hindi binigay ang NEW rulebook sa min na hinihingi ng board reps nmin eh mali ung alam naming rules! so pano nmin malalaman ang batas kung ganun nga?? what i'm saying is why o why the UAAP Board failed to give us the new rulebook? isn't it just right that everyone knows if there are amendments to the rules especially if there's a school who did not play for the league for a year and so they were not aware of new things being implemented when they came back? i think Ateneo dn didn't know that there's no penalty pala sa violation na un.. hehe naisip ko lng kc pde naman na un agad sabihin nila eh na walang patutunguhan un protesta nmin dahil wala ngang penalty! hehe siguro nman alam nila un dba nagtaka lng ako ngaun bakit hindi un ang isa sa mga sinabi nila sa min, ohwell. come to think of it, ilang araw dn un pinagisipan ni comish Ed Cordero kung ano un desisyon nya na 'acceptable' to both schools eh un lng nman pla un, walang penalty! hehe anyway tapos na 'tong issue na 'to wag na balikan hehe sori kun nabalikan ko na-connect ko lng nman kc!ö


I'd like to ask if you were even privy to the actions of your board representatives, and in what capacity.

As far as the media accounts go, the Technical Committee righteously junked the protest for lack of merit. And among the reasons given was La Salle's citing the wrong provision of the rulebook. As far as media accounts also go, the La Salle suspension was applicable to "sporting events," which means that La Salle could have, if it wanted to, participate in meetings of the board, which would have been enough opportunity for La Salle to secure the rulebook that the board used. La Salle's board reps could have also opted to borrow the copy of the rulebook from, say, UE, whose coach is the brother of the La Salle coach.

In any case, La Salle, upon learning of the Technical Committee's decision, said that it would abide by the Board's ruling. And the Board, as stated earlier, concurred with the Technical Committee, and properly dismissed the protest for lack of merit.



(As an aside, I'm sure that since we all have access to full keyboards, we can actually write in proper English, and not textspeak.)

davrub2003
08-30-2007, 05:37 AM
@ Danny - Sorry for that "nasty" post of mine. I probably thought that you were flamebaiting when you threw that question when in fact everybody's aware that Mam Francisco is tagged as the initiator of this rule. And sadly without any concrete proof to back up this malicious accusation.

I'm sorry. And I have nothing against you or your fellow Bedans for that matter.





USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!


tigerman, you also don't have proof that ms. francisco DID NOT come up with this rule.* anyway, i think most posters were against the rule, not necessarily against ms. francisco.* i bet, when they face her, these people will be as courteous as anyone can be.

i am sometimes also guilty of attacking the person rather than the act of the person.*


Yes, I do have a proof. He's Dr. Ricardo Matibag of Adamson (the former UAAP president back in 2005).
Of course on the premise that he's telling the truth. But I don't see any reason for him to say otherwise.




USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!


Okay. BTW, is Dr. Ricardo Matibag of Adamson still with the league and has the power to impose new rules? This is not to debate on the issue. I just want to know how the league is ran by the powers that be.

bananafrap
08-30-2007, 06:13 AM
I'd like to ask if you were even privy to the actions of your board representatives, and in what capacity.

As far as the media accounts go, the Technical Committee righteously junked the protest for lack of merit. And among the reasons given was La Salle's citing the wrong provision of the rulebook. As far as media accounts also go, the La Salle suspension was applicable to "sporting events," which means that La Salle could have, if it wanted to, participate in meetings of the board, which would have been enough opportunity for La Salle to secure the rulebook that the board used. La Salle's board reps could have also opted to borrow the copy of the rulebook from, say, UE, whose coach is the brother of the La Salle coach.

In any case, La Salle, upon learning of the Technical Committee's decision, said that it would abide by the Board's ruling. And the Board, as stated earlier, concurred with the Technical Committee, and properly dismissed the protest for lack of merit.



(As an aside, I'm sure that since we all have access to full keyboards, we can actually write in proper English, and not textspeak.)


Okay, since I do have access to a full keyboard, I will write in proper English.

The Technical Committee junked the protest of La Salle for lack of merit. We all know that. You are saying our suspension was only applicable to “sporting events” and we could, if we wanted to, participate in the meetings of the board. Now the problem here is, La Salle didn’t participate in the said meetings. Isn’t it the Board’s responsibility to inform the suspended school the amendments in the rulebook? If indeed it was not their responsibility, isn’t it just right to enlighten our Board Representatives with whatever they needed to know come Season 70? Should La Salle ask for the rulebook? Is it not supposed to be given to all schools part of the UAAP once there were changes made? Our Board Representatives asked for their copy of the rulebook since La Salle didn’t have a copy when they were suspended. Why was it not given to them? If you’re asking why La Salle did not borrow the said rulebook from the coach of UE, is the rulebook of UE kept by their coach? Can the family members of the coach ask for the rulebook anytime? His brother Franz could have asked for it and he could have photocopied it so La Salle can have a copy of the rulebook? Why do that when we can get our copy from the UAAP Board? Should we be suspended for Season 71 because we were 'negligent' (again) for not being able to secure the rulebook and not know the amendments in the rules and the new rules? All I’m asking is why the UAAP Board failed to provide La Salle a copy of the rulebook when there were changes made whether La Salle asked for a copy or not?

pablohoney
08-30-2007, 08:49 AM
And I am happy to have gamefacers like you guys.
My apologies also Thomasians. Miscommunication.

I'm out of here. ;D




No harm done, Danny. No harm done.
Peace out. :)

tigerman
08-30-2007, 11:53 AM
@ Danny - Sorry for that "nasty" post of mine. I probably thought that you were flamebaiting when you threw that question when in fact everybody's aware that Mam Francisco is tagged as the initiator of this rule. And sadly without any concrete proof to back up this malicious accusation.

I'm sorry. And I have nothing against you or your fellow Bedans for that matter.





USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!


tigerman, you also don't have proof that ms. francisco DID NOT come up with this rule. anyway, i think most posters were against the rule, not necessarily against ms. francisco. i bet, when they face her, these people will be as courteous as anyone can be.

i am sometimes also guilty of attacking the person rather than the act of the person.


Yes, I do have a proof. He's Dr. Ricardo Matibag of Adamson (the former UAAP president back in 2005).
Of course on the premise that he's telling the truth. But I don't see any reason for him to say otherwise.




USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!


Okay. BTW, is Dr. Ricardo Matibag of Adamson still with the league and has the power to impose new rules? This is not to debate on the issue. I just want to know how the league is ran by the powers that be.


No, he's no longer Adamson's representative to the board. At present, he's busy preparing for the bar examinations.





USTE LO MEJOR!
VIVA SANTO TOMAS!

atenean_blooded
08-30-2007, 01:06 PM
Okay, since I do have access to a full keyboard, I will write in proper English.

The Technical Committee junked the protest of La Salle for lack of merit. We all know that. You are saying our suspension was only applicable to “sporting events” and we could, if we wanted to, participate in the meetings of the board. Now the problem here is, La Salle didn’t participate in the said meetings. Isn’t it the Board’s responsibility to inform the suspended school the amendments in the rulebook? If indeed it was not their responsibility, isn’t it just right to enlighten our Board Representatives with whatever they needed to know come Season 70?

As the sole member school who did not attend the board meetings to secure a copy of updated rules, the responsibility was La Salle's.


Should La Salle ask for the rulebook?

Obviously, yes.



Is it not supposed to be given to all schools part of the UAAP once there were changes made? Our Board Representatives asked for their copy of the rulebook since La Salle didn’t have a copy when they were suspended. Why was it not given to them?

I don't know. But why didn't they have a copy of the rulebook that everybody else had? La Salle or its supporters cannot just cast blame on the board for its inability to secure a rulebook that seven other member schools managed to secure.



If you’re asking why La Salle did not borrow the said rulebook from the coach of UE, is the rulebook of UE kept by their coach? Can the family members of the coach ask for the rulebook anytime? His brother Franz could have asked for it and he could have photocopied it so La Salle can have a copy of the rulebook? Why do that when we can get our copy from the UAAP Board?

I suppose Dindo Pumaren, like other coaches, is aware of the rules, and would have been able to secure a copy of the rulebook from UE's representatives had he needed one.

The rest of the questions quoted are rhetorical.



Should we be suspended for Season 71 because we were 'negligent' (again) for not being able to secure the rulebook and not know the amendments in the rules and the new rules?

I suggest actually thinking before resorting to such questions.



All I’m asking is why the UAAP Board failed to provide La Salle a copy of the rulebook when there were changes made whether La Salle asked for a copy or not?

The question is why La Salle failed to secure a copy that seven other member schools did.

5FootCarrot
08-30-2007, 02:19 PM
Just a suggestion - maybe this thread should be renamed "Reactions to UAAP Rules and Regulations" ??? I think the discussions thus far have covered at least three rules, not just "another" one.

bananafrap
08-30-2007, 04:44 PM
this is not anymore a question of why La Salle failed to secure the said rulebook when all the other member schools has a copy. i am not even blaming the board as such. all i'm saying is, whether La Salle asked for their copy of the rulebook or not, why didn't the UAAP Board give us our copy? Should the Board always wait for the member schools to ask for their copy of the rulebook before it will be given to them? Isn't it automatic that once there's a new rulebook, all schools are provided a copy? Yes, it is our responsibility that we failed to get a copy. Maybe we should have made more effort to get our copy, maybe we should have been resourceful by borrowing from the other member schools especially if one of them is a relative of our coach, maybe we should have fought with the officials until we get our copy and a lot more maybes. Did we blame other people when we quoted the wrong provision in our protest because our rulebook is not updated? We did not because it was our problem. If we only knew that the updated version of the rule does not imply a certain penalty for the violation then maybe we would not have protested because what's the use when there's no penalty for it? It's our fault that we were not aware of such amendments to the rules, it's our fault that we didn't managed to get our copy when all 7 member schools managed to secure one and it is also our fault for not attending the board meetings to secure a copy of the updated rules. But it is also the responsibility of the UAAP Board to provide us our copy of the rulebook. that's it.

BigBlue
08-30-2007, 07:10 PM
paragraph breaks are friends. maawa ka naman sa nagbabasa.

bananafrap
08-30-2007, 08:24 PM
^ noted!

Howard the Duck
08-30-2007, 10:22 PM
ano na bang pinaguusapan? ???

bananafrap
08-30-2007, 10:37 PM
^ OT na kami hehe

atenean_blooded
08-31-2007, 12:13 AM
this is not anymore a question of why La Salle failed to secure the said rulebook when all the other member schools has a copy. i am not even blaming the board as such. all i'm saying is, whether La Salle asked for their copy of the rulebook or not, why didn't the UAAP Board give us our copy? Should the Board always wait for the member schools to ask for their copy of the rulebook before it will be given to them? Isn't it automatic that once there's a new rulebook, all schools are provided a copy? Yes, it is our responsibility that we failed to get a copy. Maybe we should have made more effort to get our copy, maybe we should have been resourceful by borrowing from the other member schools especially if one of them is a relative of our coach, maybe we should have fought with the officials until we get our copy and a lot more maybes. Did we blame other people when we quoted the wrong provision in our protest because our rulebook is not updated? We did not because it was our problem. If we only knew that the updated version of the rule does not imply a certain penalty for the violation then maybe we would not have protested because what's the use when there's no penalty for it? It's our fault that we were not aware of such amendments to the rules, it's our fault that we didn't managed to get our copy when all 7 member schools managed to secure one and it is also our fault for not attending the board meetings to secure a copy of the updated rules. But it is also the responsibility of the UAAP Board to provide us our copy of the rulebook. that's it.


In which case, explain why other member schools managed to secure copies of the rule book, and why La Salle failed to get one, even after being suspended throughout the entirety of season 69 (when the terms of the suspension were clear and unequivocal in being limited to "sporting events," meaning La Salle board representatives could have attended meetings), plus the summer, and so on.

Tapos na dapat yung usapan dito:


Yes, it is our responsibility that we failed to get a copy.

bananafrap
08-31-2007, 01:43 AM
^ The problem is, it is a two way process. If indeed we failed to get a copy of the rulebook for our school, which will serve us our guide throughout the season, shouldn't the UAAP Board gladly inform/notify us that we still don't have a copy of the new rulebook and instinctively be presented to us as soon as the season started? If it is our fault that we did not attend the meetings at the time that we were suspended, isn't it just right for the Board to enlighten us with whatever we needed to know? Shouldn't the updated rulebook be given to La Salle without needing to ask? As it is the Board's responsibility for the league to work smoothly by making sure that everyone is on the same page.

Obviously the NCAA and the UAAP are having problems this season because somehow it is not organized (maybe because there's a different commissioner every year? well, that is just me hehe). This is just my observation vis-à-vis all the issues or controversies that happened to both the NCAA and the UAAP. One problem that should be a concern for the NCAA Management Committee and the UAAP Board is that the rules are not clear. Isn't it? And i hope that this specific problem will be addressed by both the NCAA and the UAAP to avoid further confusion to the member schools concerned.

Anyway, I'm not blaming the UAAP Board for La Salle not having a copy of the rulebook when the season started. As we both said, it is La Salle's responsibility. What just concerns me is that the 'league' is not also doing their duty to full extent of making sure that EVERYONE is guided accordingly. Isn't that the reason why there is a Technical Committee and a Board, to ensure that the league is maneuvered as it should be -not just creating new rules as they please but also being there to lead and guide everyone?

atenean_blooded
08-31-2007, 01:53 AM
^ The problem is, it is a two way process. If indeed we failed to get a copy of the rulebook for our school, which will serve us our guide throughout the season, shouldn't the UAAP Board gladly inform/notify us that we still don't have a copy of the new rulebook and instinctively be presented to us as soon as the season started? If it is our fault that we did not attend the meetings at the time that we were suspended, isn't it just right for the Board to enlighten us with whatever we needed to know? Shouldn't the updated rulebook be given to La Salle without needing to ask? As it is the Board's responsibility for the league to work smoothly by making sure that everyone is on the same page.

The corollary responsibility lies with members to ensure that they are updated.

Even in terms of life and law, citizens are expected to keep abreast with current legislation. Laws are published and disseminated--in this situation, the analogous situation is clearly demonstrated that seven member schools had copies of the new rulebook. And there is a maxim that says "ignorance of the law does not excuse anyone from compliance therewith." The same maxim applies to the rulebook.

Clearly, the UAAP did its job--seven member schools were able to secure copies of the rulebook. It is no longer the UAAP's fault that one member school failed to keep itself updated.



Obviously the NCAA and the UAAP are having problems this season because somehow it is not organized (maybe because there's a different commissioner every year? well, that is just me hehe). This is just my observation vis-à-vis all the issues or controversies that happened to both the NCAA and the UAAP. One problem that should be a concern for the NCAA Management Committee and the UAAP Board is that the rules are not clear. Isn't it? And i hope that this specific problem will be addressed by both the NCAA and the UAAP to avoid further confusion to the member schools concerned.

The ambiguity lies with the rules, then.



Anyway, I'm not blaming the UAAP Board for La Salle not having a copy of the rulebook when the season started. As we both said, it is La Salle's responsibility. What just concerns me is that the 'league' is not also doing their duty to full extent of making sure that EVERYONE is guided accordingly. Isn't that the reason why there is a Technical Committee and a Board, to ensure that the league is maneuvered as it should be?


See my response to the first quoted paragraph.

bananafrap
08-31-2007, 02:29 AM
Just because only one school was left out, it is already that school's problem/fault (with a certain issue) because all the others were on the same page na? Obviously you are not getting my point. I do know that it is La Salle's responsibility to ensure that they updated. What I'm saying is just because that it is the problem/responsibility of that specific school, the 'league' would not, let's say, care for that school by informing them of what they are missing out? Isn't it also one of the duties of the 'league' to ensure that everyone (not only the other 7 but all 8 schools) is on the same page even if it is each school's responsibility. If La Salle was indeed ignorant in this case, should it not be a concern of the 'league' why La Salle was ignorant or why La Salle did not know the rules or why La Salle failed to secure the rulebook?

Clearly, the UAAP did not do its job---because ONLY seven member schools were able to secure copies of the rulebook AND NOT ALL EIGHT SCHOOLS. We are talking about a rulebook that is made/produced/released by the UAAP and it is their duty to give all eight schools their own copy.

atenean_blooded
08-31-2007, 02:32 AM
What part of "ignorance of the law does not excuse anyone from compliance therewith" do you have trouble understanding?

That's the point. If you don't get it, you don't get it.

bananafrap
08-31-2007, 02:44 AM
don't worry, i don't have any trouble understanding what it means. :D

La Salle was ignorant for not knowing the changes in the rules and for not being able to secure a copy of the updated rulebook that's why La Salle quoted the wrong provision in their protest. We know that. And i am not using the Board as an excuse as to why we didn't know the changes in the rules. That's not my point. What i am saying is, since we failed to secure our copy of the new rulebook, shouldn't the Board instead be the one to give/provide us our copy since we didn't manage to get one? Let me say it again, Isn't it the Board's responsibility to ensure that everyone is on the same page to avoid 'ignorance of the law' and confusion?

abcdboy
08-31-2007, 04:31 AM
Kapag may criminal irarason niya lang "eh kasi di niyo ako binigyan ng kopya ng Revised Penal Code" ;D

bananafrap
08-31-2007, 04:43 AM
^ pde rin haha!ü

bananafrap
08-31-2007, 05:46 AM
The problem in the UAAP is that since there's a different host, president and commissioner every year, it is relatively easy (basta ba majority vote diba?) to amend the rules. Sometimes because of that we then are ignorant/unaware/uninformed of such changes because not every amendment in the rules were given media attention. I am not saying that the UAAP Board should have a press conference whenever there are changes in the rules. But i think it would be better if the Board could come up with a way of informing other parties such as students, alumni, fans, supporters and others of such changes who doesn't have an access to the rulebook whether directly or through the school or the Board Representatives. I don't know if you guys do have an access, maybe you can share it with me if there's a place or a website that has the contents of the rulebook. Because I for one, am ignorant to the rules.

In short this case is way different if we will try to connect it with the criminal acts in the 'Revised Penal Code' because we don't need to ask the government for a copy, we can get the Revised Penal Code and even the Saligang Batas in different bookstores. Unlike the UAAP Rulebook wherein you can only get it from the UAAP Board considering not just anyone can ask for a copy. Or can we ask for one? Plus being a criminal is a different story, hehe!

Anyway, let me just make it clear atenean_blooded that i do get your point and i have nothing against it because it is true. I am just saying that there is also another side of the coin that the UAAP Board is also accountable because they also failed to give La Salle a copy of the rulebook while all the other seven member schools were given a copy. That's just basically my point, kung saan saan na naman tayo napunta eh hehe! So my last question is, if La Salle failed to get a copy of the rulebook from the UAAP, why did the UAAP also failed to give La Salle their copy of the rulebook?

atenean_blooded
08-31-2007, 09:57 AM
The proposition is preposterous.

When you go to court to file suit, and your lawyer doesn't know what the rules and laws are, do you ask the court for an updated copy of the rules and laws?

No. You fire the lawyer.

As has been pointed out in a whole slough of posts (a simple use of one's elementary powers of observation, i.e. "reading", will be helpful), the incontrovertible facts show that the Board was not remiss in its duty to give copies of the rulebook to the league. It is not the Board's fault that one member school did not take it upon itself to update itself accordingly.

bananafrap
08-31-2007, 04:04 PM
^ haaay, this will never end!

The difference between these two scenarios is that obviously a court is not the one who will provide all the citizens in the country for a copy and the citizens of the country can always get their own copy through different bookstores and so there will be no reason for them to not know the laws but in the UAAP they are the sole provider of such rulebook and the member schools can only get it from them. Now whether it is La Salle's fault/responsibility for not being updated with the rules or not, shouldn't the Board be the one to make things right for that school by giving them their copy of the rulebook since they failed to get one?

In Filipino, dahil ang pitong eskwelahan na miyembro ng UAAP ay nakakuha na ng kanilang rulebook at isang eskwelahan na lamang, sa anumang dahilan, ay hindi nakakuha ng rulebook na ito ay wala ng pakialam ang UAAP Board at hahayaan na lamang na sila ay walang alam sa mga pagbabago sa mga batas at walang gagawing hakbang ang UAAP Board para sila ay matuwid sa tamang direksyon?

Para matapos na ito sagutin mo na lang ang tanong ko. At kung ang sagot mo ay wala ng pakialam ang UAAP Board kung ang isa mang eskwelahan ay naliligaw ng landas, wala na akong iba pang masasabi.

But for me still, La Salle did fail to secure their own copy of the rulebook and failed to keep itself updated and it is their responsibility. But the UAAP Board is also accountable.

Okay sige napupuyat na ako dito, di na ako magsasalita dahil kahit ano mang sabihin ko ay hindi mo naman naiiintindihan eh! Sa ibang issue na naman tayo muling magkikita (for sure hahaü) ;D

davrub2003
08-31-2007, 09:44 PM
isn't it that the board is composed of representations from the seven member schools? it seems to me that the other six kept silent on the existence of a rule book that left la salle unaware of its existence. if la salle knew that this rule book does exist, most likely it would have secured a copy ASAP. that is plain common sense.

i think this is what bananafrap is driving at. the other six schools, or uaap board, should inform all members about the rulebook.

if a person doesn't know about a thing in existence, that person won't be out looking or asking for it. this is plain logic.

and besides, the "ignorance of the law" doctrine applies only to legal systems and the prerequisite for such is that the law should be sufficiently published and disseminated. in the uaap rulebook case, if this doctrine is to be applied here, it seems that the "board" did not "publish or inform" la salle about the rulebook. i bet even if this case is brought to court, the verdict would be in la salle's favor.

atenean_blooded
08-31-2007, 10:00 PM
^ haaay, this will never end!

The difference between these two scenarios is that obviously a court is not the one who will provide all the citizens in the country for a copy and the citizens of the country can always get their own copy through different bookstores and so there will be no reason for them to not know the laws but in the UAAP they are the sole provider of such rulebook and the member schools can only get it from them. Now whether it is La Salle's fault/responsibility for not being updated with the rules or not, shouldn't the Board be the one to make things right for that school by giving them their copy of the rulebook since they failed to get one?

If we are to sustain this proposition for the sake of argument, La Salle should have updated itself by asking the Board for the rulebook before it filed the protest.



In Filipino, dahil ang pitong eskwelahan na miyembro ng UAAP ay nakakuha na ng kanilang rulebook at isang eskwelahan na lamang, sa anumang dahilan, ay hindi nakakuha ng rulebook na ito ay wala ng pakialam ang UAAP Board at hahayaan na lamang na sila ay walang alam sa mga pagbabago sa mga batas at walang gagawing hakbang ang UAAP Board para sila ay matuwid sa tamang direksyon?

Malinaw na may hakbang na ginawa ang UAAP para sa kalahatan, na makikita sa hindi mapagkakailang katotohanan na mayroong kopya ng nasabing talaan ng mga patakaran ang mga miyembro ng UAAP. Iyon nga lang, merong isang hindi kumuha. Kasalanan ba ng UAAP? Hindi. Kaninong tungkulin na gawan ng remedyo iyan? Dun sa hindi kumuha. Dapat humingi.



Para matapos na ito sagutin mo na lang ang tanong ko. At kung ang sagot mo ay wala ng pakialam ang UAAP Board kung ang isa mang eskwelahan ay naliligaw ng landas, wala na akong iba pang masasabi.

Basahin mo yung sagot sa itaas.



But for me still, La Salle did fail to secure their own copy of the rulebook and failed to keep itself updated and it is their responsibility. But the UAAP Board is also accountable.

Again, what part of "ignorance of the law does not excuse anyone from compliance therewith" do you fail to understand? And what part of the incontrovertible facts require further explanation for you?

bananafrap
08-31-2007, 11:50 PM
Obviously you are not getting my point. Since we have new Board Representatives this season and since La Salle was suspended the previous season, we had no copy of the rulebook thus we didn't know the amendments made during that time. So even before the La Salle - Ateneo game, our Board Representatives have already been asking for their copy of the rulebook, which i have been saying -the Board failed to do so. Whether our efforts were great to be able to secure the said rulebook or not, there is still the unresolved issue of why the UAAP Board did not give La Salle their copy -again whether La Salle asked for a copy or not.

As i have said, i do know that it is La Salle's fault. And we did not blame anyone when we quoted the wrong provision in our protest. We know it was our fault that we didn't know that the said rule was amended. Now what i am asking is, was the UAAP Board aware that La Salle did not have the updated rulebook which means they do not know the changes made because they did not attend the meetings when they were suspended? Were they aware of that? If they knew about it, what then is the proper thing to do?

Did we blame anyone when we said that we didn't know that the rule was amended? When the Technical Committee informed everyone that the protest was denied because the rule does not say any penalty for the said violation, all our officials said was “La Salle feels the crux of its protest has been met, and is satisfied with this finding." That's it. My concern really is just the fact that La Salle did not have a copy of the rulebook and that is the Board's sense of duty to provide us a copy since they are the ones producing/generating/releasing/supplying/keeping the said rulebook.

"Ignorance of the law does not excuse anyone from compliance therewith." This has nothing to do with the issue of La Salle failing to secure a copy of the rulebook and the Board also failing to give La Salle their copy of the rulebook. If we are talking about let's say we reverse the story and there's already a penalty for the said violation and then La Salle made that violation but they didn't know that the rule was amended, then we can say "ignorance of the law does not excuse anyone from compliance therewith." (hmmm, maybe you'll say that they are just the same hehe)

Ang sinasabi ko lang talaga ay kung bakit hindi naibigay ng UAAP ang kopya ng rulebook ng La Salle? Wag muna natin isama ang isyu na may pagkukulang ang La Salle kung bakit wala silang kopya. Ang pagusapan natin ay yung responsibilidad ng UAAP na bigyan ng kopya ng rulebook ang walong miyembro ng UAAP. Bakit nga ba hindi naibigay ng UAAP ang kopya ng rulebook ng La Salle? Dahil hindi ito hiningi ng eskwelahan? Eh humingi nga ang mga bago naming Board Representatives ng kopya sa UAAP Board. Bakit hindi kami nabigyan?

Howard the Duck
08-31-2007, 11:59 PM
Mag PM na lang kayo ;D

atenean_blooded
09-01-2007, 12:22 AM
Obviously you are not getting my point. Since we have new Board Representatives this season and since La Salle was suspended the previous season, we had no copy of the rulebook thus we didn't know the amendments made during that time. So even before the La Salle - Ateneo game, our Board Representatives have already been asking for their copy of the rulebook, which i have been saying -the Board failed to do so. Whether our efforts were great to be able to secure the said rulebook or not, there is still the unresolved issue of why the UAAP Board did not give La Salle their copy -again whether La Salle asked for a copy or not.

Quick points:

1. Basis?

2. The fact that La Salle has new board representatives does not excuse its failure to update itself, especially during the period of suspension from sporting events.

Furthermore, your allegation suddenly says that La Salle knew of an updated rulebook. And if we go by the previous posts in other threads, the sticking point was that La Salle allegedly did not know that the rulebook had been amended.

The proposition is inconsistent.



As i have said, i do know that it is La Salle's fault. And we did not blame anyone when we quoted the wrong provision in our protest. We know it was our fault that we didn't know that the said rule was amended. Now what i am asking is, was the UAAP Board aware that La Salle did not have the updated rulebook which means they do not know the changes made because they did not attend the meetings when they were suspended? Were they aware of that? If they knew about it, what then is the proper thing to do?

The proper course of action would have been to junk the protest for lack of merit, because the citation of the wrong provision was, as pointed out in the media, merely one of the grounds for the Technical Committee's junking of the protest.

The cornerstone of your argument is that the Board should have given La Salle a copy of the rulebook. And the facts show that La Salle had every opportunity to get a copy of the rulebook. It did not. The Board, at that point, was no longer remiss in its duty.



Did we blame anyone when we said that we didn't know that the rule was amended? When the Technical Committee informed everyone that the protest was denied because the rule does not say any penalty for the said violation, all our officials said was “La Salle feels the crux of its protest has been met, and is satisfied with this finding." That's it. My concern really is just the fact that La Salle did not have a copy of the rulebook and that is the Board's sense of duty to provide us a copy since they are the ones producing/generating/releasing/supplying/keeping the said rulebook.

See above.



"Ignorance of the law does not excuse anyone from compliance therewith." This has nothing to do with the issue of La Salle failing to secure a copy of the rulebook and the Board also failing to give La Salle their copy of the rulebook. If we are talking about let's say we reverse the story and there's already a penalty for the said violation and then La Salle made that violation but they didn't know that the rule was amended, then we can say "ignorance of the law does not excuse anyone from compliance therewith." (hmmm, maybe you'll say that they are just the same hehe)

The hypothetical situation fails to impress.

As the party which filed the protest, it was incumbent upon La Salle to cite its basis properly.

If we go by the other posts, then La Salle obviously failed to update itself before filing the protest, further undermining the protest which was already unmeritorious.

If we go by your version of the facts, then La Salle ought to have, at the very least, clarified the basis for its protest when it cited the rules as stated in the version of the rulebook it had, perhaps by making a categorical statement that the rules it cited were the ones in its version of the rulebook, and that it was relying on those rules and their equivalent in the updated rulebook. At least with such a qualification, the integrity of La Salle's protest, at least as far as the rules were concerned, would have stood a little better.



Ang sinasabi ko lang talaga ay kung bakit hindi naibigay ng UAAP ang kopya ng rulebook ng La Salle? Wag muna natin isama ang isyu na may pagkukulang ang La Salle kung bakit wala silang kopya. Ang pagusapan natin ay yung responsibilidad ng UAAP na bigyan ng kopya ng rulebook ang walong miyembro ng UAAP. Bakit nga ba hindi naibigay ng UAAP ang kopya ng rulebook ng La Salle? Dahil hindi ito hiningi ng eskwelahan? Eh humingi nga ang mga bago naming Board Representatives ng kopya sa UAAP Board. Bakit hindi kami nabigyan?


See above.

bananafrap
09-01-2007, 09:44 PM
Obviously you are not getting my point. Since we have new Board Representatives this season and since La Salle was suspended the previous season, we had no copy of the rulebook thus we didn't know the amendments made during that time. So even before the La Salle - Ateneo game, our Board Representatives have already been asking for their copy of the rulebook, which i have been saying -the Board failed to do so. Whether our efforts were great to be able to secure the said rulebook or not, there is still the unresolved issue of why the UAAP Board did not give La Salle their copy -again whether La Salle asked for a copy or not.

Quick points:

1. Basis?

2. The fact that La Salle has new board representatives does not excuse its failure to update itself, especially during the period of suspension from sporting events.

Furthermore, your allegation suddenly says that La Salle knew of an updated rulebook. And if we go by the previous posts in other threads, the sticking point was that La Salle allegedly did not know that the rulebook had been amended.

The proposition is inconsistent.

I am not using the fact that La Salle has new Board Representatives as an excuse, what i am saying is that maybe that is the reason why La Salle was not able to attend the meetings last season and why there was no one to update our rulebook during those meetings. Also, when i said that La Salle asked for a copy of the rulebook of Season 69 from the UAAP Board doesn't mean La Salle knew that the rulebook was updated. It was just the fact that La Salle had no copy of the rulebook used for Season 69 whether there were amendments or not. We didn't know if there were amendments or none, that's why we asked for a copy.





As i have said, i do know that it is La Salle's fault. And we did not blame anyone when we quoted the wrong provision in our protest. We know it was our fault that we didn't know that the said rule was amended. Now what i am asking is, was the UAAP Board aware that La Salle did not have the updated rulebook which means they do not know the changes made because they did not attend the meetings when they were suspended? Were they aware of that? If they knew about it, what then is the proper thing to do?

The proper course of action would have been to junk the protest for lack of merit, because the citation of the wrong provision was, as pointed out in the media, merely one of the grounds for the Technical Committee's junking of the protest.

The cornerstone of your argument is that the Board should have given La Salle a copy of the rulebook. And the facts show that La Salle had every opportunity to get a copy of the rulebook. It did not. The Board, at that point, was no longer remiss in its duty.

"If they knew about it, what then is the proper thing to do?" -- I was talking about La Salle not having a copy of the rulebook. Since La Salle failed to get their copy and the UAAP Board knew about it, what should they do about it? What is the proper thing to do? Pabayaan lng na walang kopya ang La Salle?





"Ignorance of the law does not excuse anyone from compliance therewith." This has nothing to do with the issue of La Salle failing to secure a copy of the rulebook and the Board also failing to give La Salle their copy of the rulebook. If we are talking about let's say we reverse the story and there's already a penalty for the said violation and then La Salle made that violation but they didn't know that the rule was amended, then we can say "ignorance of the law does not excuse anyone from compliance therewith." (hmmm, maybe you'll say that they are just the same hehe)

The hypothetical situation fails to impress.

As the party which filed the protest, it was incumbent upon La Salle to cite its basis properly.

If we go by the other posts, then La Salle obviously failed to update itself before filing the protest, further undermining the protest which was already unmeritorious.

If we go by your version of the facts, then La Salle ought to have, at the very least, clarified the basis for its protest when it cited the rules as stated in the version of the rulebook it had, perhaps by making a categorical statement that the rules it cited were the ones in its version of the rulebook, and that it was relying on those rules and their equivalent in the updated rulebook. At least with such a qualification, the integrity of La Salle's protest, at least as far as the rules were concerned, would have stood a little better.

Don't worry, I did not create that hypothetical situation to impress you my dear. But it was to emphasize the fact that the maxim "ignorance of the law does not excuse anyone from compliance therewith" has nothing to do with La Salle failing to get to a copy and the Board also failing to give La Salle their copy of the rulebook because after we knew about the changes on the rule, we accepted the decision of the Technical Committee and the Board.

Just so you know, wala na po akong pakialam sa protestang binasura ng Committee. Tapos na po iyun. Wala na din naman po yung patutungahan kc nga wala namang nakasaad na parusa, hindi ba? Ang importante sa amin ay ang pagpapatotoo na meron ngang pagkakamali ang the Ateneo at dahil wala ngang parusa sa nasabing pagkakamali kaya't nabasura ang aming protesta, ayos na rin at satisfied na po kmi.ü


Anyway, sige para matapos na 'to, kung sabi mo nga na walang pagkukulang ang Board sa La Salle kung bakit wala silang kopya at iyun ay responsibilidad nila -di na ako magsasalita pa. Pero para sa akin pa rin, kahit papano ay may pagkukulang din ang Board kung bakit walang kopya ng rulebook ang La Salle. You have your own opinion and i have mine. And i respect your opinion.

atenean_blooded
09-01-2007, 10:39 PM
I am not using the fact that La Salle has new Board Representatives as an excuse, what i am saying is that maybe that is the reason why La Salle was not able to attend the meetings last season and why there was no one to update our rulebook during those meetings. Also, when i said that La Salle asked for a copy of the rulebook of Season 69 from the UAAP Board doesn't mean La Salle knew that the rulebook was updated. It was just the fact that La Salle had no copy of the rulebook used for Season 69 whether there were amendments or not. We didn't know if there were amendments or none, that's why we asked for a copy.

Again, basis?

And how do you reconcile the conflicting assertions of fact?



"If they knew about it, what then is the proper thing to do?" -- I was talking about La Salle not having a copy of the rulebook. Since La Salle failed to get their copy and the UAAP Board knew about it, what should they do about it? What is the proper thing to do? Pabayaan lng na walang kopya ang La Salle?

The obvious answer would be to give La Salle a copy of the rulebook if asked.



Don't worry, I did not create that hypothetical situation to impress you my dear. But it was to emphasize the fact that the maxim "ignorance of the law does not excuse anyone from compliance therewith" has nothing to do with La Salle failing to get to a copy and the Board also failing to give La Salle their copy of the rulebook because after we knew about the changes on the rule, we accepted the decision of the Technical Committee and the Board.

The hypothetical situation wouldn't have impressed me even if it was intended to, anyway.

It failed to be of any significant application to the discussion.

eggyboi
09-01-2007, 10:45 PM
welll... ganun talga ang lyf...

ewe_rach
09-02-2007, 10:33 PM
don't worry, i don't have any trouble understanding what it means.* :D

La Salle was ignorant for not knowing the changes in the rules and for not being able to secure a copy of the updated rulebook that's why La Salle quoted the wrong provision in their protest. We know that. And i am not using the Board as an excuse as to why we didn't know the changes in the rules. That's not my point. What i am saying is, since we failed to secure our copy of the new rulebook, shouldn't the Board instead be the one to give/provide us our copy since we didn't manage to get one? Let me say it again, Isn't it the Board's responsibility to ensure that everyone is on the same page to avoid 'ignorance of the law' and confusion?



^bananafrap, quit it man! ive had my fair share of scrutiny from them when i pointed out that dlsu wasnt able to secure a copy of the new rulebook. futile is actually the right term. hayaan na lang at tapos na! sa hardcourt na lang pag-usapan!

bananafrap
09-04-2007, 12:27 AM
Again, basis?

And how do you reconcile the conflicting assertions of fact?

Since I don’t have any direct contact with our Board Representatives or our School Officials, I am not 100% sure about my ‘allegations.’ When I said La Salle asked for a copy of the rulebook from the Board and it was not given to them, it was something I heard from my elders. Considering how they are well connected with the school, I believed them. Whether there’s truth to it or it was pure lies (I’m sure it’s not), I can’t say for now simply because there’s nothing I can show you to prove that. But as I said, I believed them because I know they are credible enough to only talk about facts and not ‘fiction!’ I’m talking about this specific group who are well aware of what’s happening to our school so don’t say they don’t know anything.

What exactly did I say that’s contradicting? My stand on this matter from the very beginning is that, as far as I know, La Salle did ask the Board for their copy of the rulebook and apparently, it was not given to them. That’s it. I don’t think I said La Salle did not ask for their copy at all. What I’ve been saying is, La Salle did fail to secure their copy. They failed, maybe because their effort was not so great. That’s why I’m saying that it is indeed their fault. But, the Board is also accountable for it. Although you don’t agree with me, FOR ME it really is one of the duties or responsibilities of the UAAP Board to give ALL member schools a copy of the rulebook to ensure that everyone is guided accordingly. And I’ve been asking you ‘should La Salle ask for their copy of the rulebook?’ to emphasize that it is also the Board’s responsibility, whether a member school asked for a copy or not. It doesn’t mean La Salle did not ask for one.






"If they knew about it, what then is the proper thing to do?" -- I was talking about La Salle not having a copy of the rulebook. Since La Salle failed to get their copy and the UAAP Board knew about it, what should they do about it? What is the proper thing to do? Pabayaan lng na walang kopya ang La Salle?

The obvious answer would be to give La Salle a copy of the rulebook if asked.

Don’t you get it? For you to fully understand what I’m talking about, let’s ‘pretend’ that La Salle did not ask for a copy of the rulebook. If the Board knew about their situation –that they did not ask for the rulebook thus they are not aware of the changes, what is the PROPER thing to do? Wala lang? Wala lang silang gagawin tungkol dun? Hahayaan lang nila na ganun? Wala na silang pakialam dahil problema na yun ng La Salle?

Yun lang po ang tinatanong ko. Kung ang sagot nyo nga po ay wala na pakialam dun ang UAAP Board, eh di yun po ang isagot nyo. Yun lang po ang gusto kong marinig na sagot sa tanong na wala bang dapat gawin ang Board sa ganung sitwasyon?





Don't worry, I did not create that hypothetical situation to impress you my dear. But it was to emphasize the fact that the maxim "ignorance of the law does not excuse anyone from compliance therewith" has nothing to do with La Salle failing to get to a copy and the Board also failing to give La Salle their copy of the rulebook because after we knew about the changes on the rule, we accepted the decision of the Technical Committee and the Board.

The hypothetical situation wouldn't have impressed me even if it was intended to, anyway.

It failed to be of any significant application to the discussion.



To Impress you with that hypothetical situation did not even cross my mind. Haha ang galing ko naman kung na-impress na po kayo dun!

That’s basically my point -to point out that the maxim “ignorance of the law does not excuse anyone from compliance therewith” has nothing to do with our discussion. What was it that we did not comply with because of our ignorance in the amendments?


Anyway, para matapos na talaga ito.. kung sinasabi mo nga na walang pagkukulang ang UAAP Board sa La Salle, eh di yun na -di ko na kokontrahin. Pero para sa akin pa rin, may pagkukulang din sila sa La Salle. 8)

Gaya nga ng sabi ni ewe_rach, useless na itong pagusapan kc tapos na. So sorry kung binuhay ko pa ito eh ang tagal na ngang tapos ang issue na ito. And wala na dn nman akong pakialam eh hehe!ö

So atenean_blooded, since we don't agree on anything at all in this topic, it's really useless for us to continue with this discussion. From here on, let's just talk about basketball. Maybe, we should have our own thread na haha joke lng!ü

ciao!

atenean_blooded
09-04-2007, 12:50 AM
Since I don’t have any direct contact with our Board Representatives or our School Officials, I am not 100% sure about my ‘allegations.’ When I said La Salle asked for a copy of the rulebook from the Board and it was not given to them, it was something I heard from my elders. Considering how they are well connected with the school, I believed them. Whether there’s truth to it or it was pure lies (I’m sure it’s not), I can’t say for now simply because there’s nothing I can show you to prove that. But as I said, I believed them because I know they are credible enough to only talk about facts and not ‘fiction!’ I’m talking about this specific group who are well aware of what’s happening to our school so don’t say they don’t know anything.

Ah. So walang basis, hearsay lang.



What exactly did I say that’s contradicting?

If you reread what I wrote earlier, I said that there were two versions: yours, and the accounts in the media. They are inconsistent.


My stand on this matter from the very beginning is that, as far as I know, La Salle did ask the Board for their copy of the rulebook and apparently, it was not given to them. That’s it. I don’t think I said La Salle did not ask for their copy at all. What I’ve been saying is, La Salle did fail to secure their copy. They failed, maybe because their effort was not so great. That’s why I’m saying that it is indeed their fault. But, the Board is also accountable for it. Although you don’t agree with me, FOR ME it really is one of the duties or responsibilities of the UAAP Board to give ALL member schools a copy of the rulebook to ensure that everyone is guided accordingly. And I’ve been asking you ‘should La Salle ask for their copy of the rulebook?’ to emphasize that it is also the Board’s responsibility, whether a member school asked for a copy or not. It doesn’t mean La Salle did not ask for one.

The Board is responsible for La Salle's fault?

The question, it seems, is whether or not the Board has been remiss in its so-called duties. It was not.



Don’t you get it? For you to fully understand what I’m talking about, let’s ‘pretend’ that La Salle did not ask for a copy of the rulebook. If the Board knew about their situation –that they did not ask for the rulebook thus they are not aware of the changes, what is the PROPER thing to do? Wala lang? Wala lang silang gagawin tungkol dun? Hahayaan lang nila na ganun? Wala na silang pakialam dahil problema na yun ng La Salle?

The hypothetical situation fails to impress.

The question has been answered: The proper action would have been to give La Salle a copy of the rulebook when asked. It no longer seems, unless you can prove the contrary, that it is within the Board's so-called duties to run after La Salle with a rulebook.

Filing a protest shifts the burden of properly making one's case to the one making the protest.



Yun lang po ang tinatanong ko. Kung ang sagot nyo nga po ay wala na pakialam dun ang UAAP Board, eh di yun po ang isagot nyo. Yun lang po ang gusto kong marinig na sagot sa tanong na wala bang dapat gawin ang Board sa ganung sitwasyon?

See above.



To Impress you with that hypothetical situation did not even cross my mind. Haha ang galing ko naman kung na-impress na po kayo dun!

That’s basically my point -to point out that the maxim “ignorance of the law does not excuse anyone from compliance therewith” has nothing to do with our discussion. What was it that we did not comply with because of our ignorance in the amendments?

Apparently, the meaning of the maxim needs to be clarified.

"Compliance," in the context of the maxim, means everything that is related with the abiding by the rules, including situations wherein one deems it necessary to invoke the rules in a particular situation (such as the filing of a protest). To hold otherwise would mean that everyone can simply feign ignorance as an excuse to cite the wrong rules.



Anyway, para matapos na talaga ito.. kung sinasabi mo nga na walang pagkukulang ang UAAP Board sa La Salle, eh di yun na -di ko na kokontrahin. Pero para sa akin pa rin, may pagkukulang din sila sa La Salle.* 8)

Gaya nga ng sabi ni ewe_rach, useless na itong pagusapan kc tapos na. So sorry kung binuhay ko pa ito eh ang tagal na ngang tapos ang issue na ito. And wala na dn nman akong pakialam eh hehe!ö

So atenean_blooded, since we don't agree on anything at all in this topic, it's really useless for us to continue with this discussion. From here on, let's just talk about basketball. Maybe, we should have our own thread na haha joke lng!ü

ciao!


And as I said, if there is anything that requires further explanation or clarification, there is such a thing as the PM function.

bananafrap
09-04-2007, 02:43 PM
If you reread what I wrote earlier, I said that there were two versions: yours, and the accounts in the media. They are inconsistent.

I didn't know that you were talking about the two versions. Kahit binasa ko ulit yung mga sinabi mo. Kala ko sinasabi mo na inconsistent ang mga sinabi ko.

What is the other version that was disclosed to the media?


The Board is responsible for La Salle's fault?

The question, it seems, is whether or not the Board has been remiss in its so-called duties. It was not.

If you're saying that it is not the Board's responsibility to provide all member schools a copy of the rulebook instinctively, whether a school asked for a copy or not, fine. But still for me, it is just right that the UAAP Board should provide everyone a copy before the season starts, whether a school asked for a copy or not.



The question has been answered: The proper action would have been to give La Salle a copy of the rulebook when asked. It no longer seems, unless you can prove the contrary, that it is within the Board's so-called duties to run after La Salle with a rulebook.

So there is no proper course of action on the part of the Board if we will talk about what they should do if one school did not ask for a copy or that school failed to secure a copy?



Apparently, the meaning of the maxim needs to be clarified.

"Compliance," in the context of the maxim, means everything that is related with the abiding by the rules, including situations wherein one deems it necessary to invoke the rules in a particular situation (such as the filing of a protest). To hold otherwise would mean that everyone can simply feign ignorance as an excuse to cite the wrong rules.

Yes, that is true. But i am not talking about the protest and all the other issues concerning our protest including La Salle's 'ignorance of the law.' We are discussing La Salle's situation on their failure to get a copy of the rulebook and my question of what is the proper thing to do when one member school failed to get a copy. That's it.

Kaya nga kung sinasabi mo na walang nararapat na gawin ang UAAP Board sa nasabing pangyayari, eh di wala. Pero para sa akin nga, dapat may ginawang aksyon ang UAAP Board sa pangyayari.

atenean_blooded
09-04-2007, 03:02 PM
I didn't know that you were talking about the two versions. Kahit binasa ko ulit yung mga sinabi mo. Kala ko sinasabi mo na inconsistent ang mga sinabi ko.

What is the other version that was disclosed to the media?

The media accounts show that La Salle, upon filing of the protest, did not know about the rule changes. Read.



If you're saying that it is not the Board's responsibility to provide all member schools a copy of the rulebook instinctively, whether a school asked for a copy or not, fine. But still for me, it is just right that the UAAP Board should provide everyone a copy before the season starts, whether a school asked for a copy or not.

Clearly, then, your ideas about what the Board's so-called duties are are already different from long-established practice. And to this position, I have already answered previously. Read.



So there is no proper course of action on the part of the Board if we will talk about what they should do if one school did not ask for a copy or that school failed to secure a copy?

This question has already been answered in my previous answers. Read.



Yes, that is true. But i am not talking about the protest and all the other issues concerning our protest including La Salle's 'ignorance of the law.' We are discussing La Salle's situation on their failure to get a copy of the rulebook and my question of what is the proper thing to do when one member school failed to get a copy. That's it.

The response also hinges upon proper appreciation of the maxim.

And the query has already been answered in my previous answers. Read.



Kaya nga kung sinasabi mo na walang nararapat na gawin ang UAAP Board sa nasabing pangyayari, eh di wala. Pero para sa akin nga, dapat may ginawang aksyon ang UAAP Board sa pangyayari.


See above.

bananafrap
09-04-2007, 03:29 PM
I didn't know that you were talking about the two versions. Kahit binasa ko ulit yung mga sinabi mo. Kala ko sinasabi mo na inconsistent ang mga sinabi ko.

What is the other version that was disclosed to the media?

The media accounts show that La Salle, upon filing of the protest, did not know about the rule changes. Read.

How is that inconsistent with my version when i also said that La Salle did not know that the rule was amended?





So there is no proper course of action on the part of the Board if we will talk about what they should do if one school did not ask for a copy or that school failed to secure a copy?

This question has already been answered in my previous answers. Read.

Your answer is not the answer that i was looking for. You've been saying that the Board would gladly give La Salle their copy of the rulebook if and only if they asked for it. But what i am asking is, if a school DID NOT ASK FOR A COPY OF THE RULEBOOK, what is the PROPER COURSE OF ACTION that the Board should do in that scenario? Wala?

atenean_blooded
09-04-2007, 09:28 PM
How is that inconsistent with my version when i also said that La Salle did not know that the rule was amended?

This has already been answered. Read.



Your answer is not the answer that i was looking for. You've been saying that the Board would gladly give La Salle their copy of the rulebook if and only if they asked for it. But what i am asking is, if a school DID NOT ASK FOR A COPY OF THE RULEBOOK, what is the PROPER COURSE OF ACTION that the Board should do in that scenario? Wala?


The query has already been answered. Read.

Howard the Duck
09-04-2007, 10:25 PM
naman, anak ng archer at agila ;D

bananafrap
09-05-2007, 12:53 AM
^ ikakasal ang kaibigan kong Lasalista sa kanyang nobya na Atenista sa sabado, before the big game hehe!ü







How is that inconsistent with my version when i also said that La Salle did not know that the rule was amended?

This has already been answered. Read.

Di nyo pa po nasasagot ang tanong na kung bakit nyo po nasabi na magkaiba ang mga sinasabi ko sa sinabi ng La Salle. Eh malinaw naman na ang mga sinabi ko ay gayon din sa La Salle. Sabi nyo nga po "The media accounts show that La Salle, upon filing of the protest, did not know about the rule changes." Hindi bat gayon din naman ang sinabi ko na hindi alam ng La Salle ang mga pagbabago sa mga alituntunin?






Your answer is not the answer that i was looking for. You've been saying that the Board would gladly give La Salle their copy of the rulebook if and only if they asked for it. But what i am asking is, if a school DID NOT ASK FOR A COPY OF THE RULEBOOK, what is the PROPER COURSE OF ACTION that the Board should do in that scenario? Wala?


The query has already been answered. Read.


So there's no proper course of action in that scenario since the school did not ask for their copy of the rulebook? Okay sige, wala na akong problema pa. Ganun naman nga pala iyun na wala nang pakialam ang Board sa problema ng isang eskwelahan.


(Sana manalo La Salle sa Sunday!ü Goodluck to both La Salle and Ateneo. Whatever the result is, whether it's good for La Salle or not, i know it's going to be a great game! But i hope it'll be a win for the Green Archersü)

atenean_blooded
09-05-2007, 01:23 AM
Di nyo pa po nasasagot ang tanong na kung bakit nyo po nasabi na magkaiba ang mga sinasabi ko sa sinabi ng La Salle. Eh malinaw naman na ang mga sinabi ko ay gayon din sa La Salle. Sabi nyo nga po "The media accounts show that La Salle, upon filing of the protest, did not know about the rule changes." Hindi bat gayon din naman ang sinabi ko na hindi alam ng La Salle ang mga pagbabago sa mga alituntunin?

You also made the assertion that La Salle was asking for the rule book when it was going to file its protest.

However, again, if you had bothered to properly read the media accounts, and the discussions here, you would have seen that it was apparent that La Salle did not know of the rule changes because it was not even aware of the updates. And again, and again, and again, I have asked you how you propose to reconcile those conflicting versions of FACT. You have not.

In fact, I went so far as to ask, so as to facilitate explanation, that had La Salle actually been aware of substantive changes made by virtue of a new rulebook, and yet it had no copy, why did it not make an appropriate reservation noting possible changes in the rules by citing the rules it knew of and their possibly new equivalents?

And thus far, you have had no explanation. Nor have you answered my previous question.

Is this easy enough to understand now?



So there's no proper course of action in that scenario since the school did not ask for their copy of the rulebook? Okay sige, wala na akong problema pa. Ganun naman nga pala iyun na wala nang pakialam ang Board sa problema ng isang eskwelahan.

Again, and this has been reiterated, the Board has not been remiss in its duties. It was La Salle, by your own admission, that FAILED to update itself properly.

bananafrap
09-05-2007, 10:13 PM
You also made the assertion that La Salle was asking for the rule book when it was going to file its protest.

However, again, if you had bothered to properly read the media accounts, and the discussions here, you would have seen that it was apparent that La Salle did not know of the rule changes because it was not even aware of the updates. And again, and again, and again, I have asked you how you propose to reconcile those conflicting versions of FACT. You have not.

If only you had bothered to read and correctly understood what I said then you would know that when I said La Salle asked for a copy of the rulebook even before the La Salle – Ateneo game, it doesn't mean that was when La Salle was going to file its protest because I never said that our Board Representatives only asked for the ‘updated rulebook’ before filing the protest but what i said was: even before the La Salle - Ateneo game. And also it doesn’t mean La Salle knew about the changes in the rules. Just the fact that La Salle had no copy of the rulebook used for the whole duration of Season 69, La Salle didn’t know if there were changes in the rules or if there are new rules thus “La Salle did not know of the rule changes because it was not even aware of the updates.” That’s why our Board Representatives asked for a copy of the rulebook just in case there were changes in the rules. So what’s the problem? What conflicting versions of facts do I need to reconcile? Because it’s clear that there is only one account avowed by La Salle and that’s also what I know and that’s what I said –that La Salle did not know the changes in the rules.



In fact, I went so far as to ask, so as to facilitate explanation, that had La Salle actually been aware of substantive changes made by virtue of a new rulebook, and yet it had no copy, why did it not make an appropriate reservation noting possible changes in the rules by citing the rules it knew of and their possibly new equivalents?

And thus far, you have had no explanation. Nor have you answered my previous question.

Is this easy enough to understand now?

How on earth would we know what rule was amended? So until we get our copy of the rulebook, IF there were violations made by the other schools based on the rulebook that we have, we would be defensive in a way to note in our protest what rule we know and ask first if that rule was amended or not?

So we should have said in our protest that,

“The Ateneo violated UAAP Rule IX but we are not sure if this specific rule was amended during the time that we were suspended and because we have no copy of the rulebook of Season 69, please inform us first if indeed this rule was changed and can you please update us with the changes in the said rule so then we can proceed with our protest. Thank you for your time.”






So there's no proper course of action in that scenario since the school did not ask for their copy of the rulebook? Okay sige, wala na akong problema pa. Ganun naman nga pala iyun na wala nang pakialam ang Board sa problema ng isang eskwelahan.

Again, and this has been reiterated, the Board has not been remiss in its duties. It was La Salle, by your own admission, that FAILED to update itself properly.


Yes, I know that. But again, that’s not my point. When La Salle failed to get their copy of the rulebook, even if it’s not one of the Board’s so-called duties as you said, isn’t it just right that they inform or notify the said school about their situation that they don’t know that there were changes in the rules? Like calling the attention of the Board Representatives of La Salle and informing them that the rulebook was updated during Season 69 and that they should try their best to get a hold of that rulebook, even if that’s not their duty anymore. That is just what I’m saying. That it is just a matter of principle and not anymore about their so-called duties if it’s really not their duty. Do you get what I’m saying? It is just sad that they would not do anything about it since it’s not part of their so-called duties even if they are well aware that one school is not aware of the changes in the rules since they don’t have a copy of the updated rulebook, that they don’t know about. I guess I’m expecting too much from the Board. Sorry! Wala na nga pala silang pakialam since it’s not one of their so-called duties anymore. Okay, let’s move on!

atenean_blooded
09-05-2007, 11:14 PM
If only you had bothered to read and correctly understood what I said then you would know that when I said La Salle asked for a copy of the rulebook even before the La Salle – Ateneo game, it doesn't mean that was when La Salle was going to file its protest because I never said that our Board Representatives only asked for the ‘updated rulebook’ before filing the protest but what i said was: even before the La Salle - Ateneo game.

This is an assertion of FACT. And for this, I have already previously asked you for your BASIS. And when I asked you if you were privy to the actions by your board members, you simply said that you had learned about these things through your "elders."



And also it doesn’t mean La Salle knew about the changes in the rules. Just the fact that La Salle had no copy of the rulebook used for the whole duration of Season 69, La Salle didn’t know if there were changes in the rules or if there are new rules thus “La Salle did not know of the rule changes because it was not even aware of the updates.” That’s why our Board Representatives asked for a copy of the rulebook just in case there were changes in the rules. So what’s the problem? What conflicting versions of facts do I need to reconcile? Because it’s clear that there is only one account avowed by La Salle and that’s also what I know and that’s what I said –that La Salle did not know the changes in the rules.

See above.



How on earth would we know what rule was amended? So until we get our copy of the rulebook, IF there were violations made by the other schools based on the rulebook that we have, we would be defensive in a way to note in our protest what rule we know and ask first if that rule was amended or not?

Which is why your earlier assertion is inconsistent: apparently, La Salle DID NOT KNOW of the updated rules, because it FAILED to properly secure an updated rulebook. Had La Salle truly known about an updated rulebook, La Salle, in its protest, ought to have been more cautious as to the provisions it was citing, being fully aware that it could have been mistaken with regard to the precise provisions it was citing.

The FACT that La Salle DID NOT KNOW that the rules were amended further undermines your theory that it knew of an updated rulebook. Which is why I have repeatedly asked you to reconcile the conflicting versions of fact, which you have, thus far, failed to do.



So we should have said in our protest that,

“The Ateneo violated UAAP Rule IX but we are not sure if this specific rule was amended during the time that we were suspended and because we have no copy of the rulebook of Season 69, please inform us first if indeed this rule was changed and can you please update us with the changes in the said rule so then we can proceed with our protest. Thank you for your time.”

This wording is crude, but it gets the proper point across.



Yes, I know that. But again, that’s not my point. When La Salle failed to get their copy of the rulebook, even if it’s not one of the Board’s so-called duties as you said, isn’t it just right that they inform or notify the said school about their situation that they don’t know that there were changes in the rules? Like calling the attention of the Board Representatives of La Salle and informing them that the rulebook was updated during Season 69 and that they should try their best to get a hold of that rulebook, even if that’s not their duty anymore. That is just what I’m saying.

And again, and again, this has been replied to.



That it is just a matter of principle and not anymore about their so-called duties if it’s really not their duty. Do you get what I’m saying?

Yes. Do you?


It is just sad that they would not do anything about it since it’s not part of their so-called duties even if they are well aware that one school is not aware of the changes in the rules since they don’t have a copy of the updated rulebook, that they don’t know about. I guess I’m expecting too much from the Board. Sorry! Wala na nga pala silang pakialam since it’s not one of their so-called duties anymore.

It's interesting how you are now trying to divorce the concepts of "matter of principle" and of "duty." Of course, a discussion about THAT subject matter will simply throw this thread off-topic.

Expecting the board to run after you with a rulebook isn't too much. It's just ridiculous.



Okay, let’s move on!

Next time, I suggest being a little more consistent: like when you say that you don't care about this subject matter anymore, and that you want to move on, etc., do so.

bananafrap
09-06-2007, 01:21 PM
Next time, I suggest being a little more consistent: like when you say that you don't care about this subject matter anymore, and that you want to move on, etc., do so.


Haha, wag po kayong mag-alala dahil napansin ko din po iyan. Nakakasawa na kasi talaga ito pagusapan pero hindi ko kasi matiis na hindi sumagot sa mga sinabi nyo kaya ganyan nga po ang nangyari. Kaya pag pasensyahan nyo na lang po kung ang gulo ko.ü







If only you had bothered to read and correctly understood what I said then you would know that when I said La Salle asked for a copy of the rulebook even before the La Salle – Ateneo game, it doesn't mean that was when La Salle was going to file its protest because I never said that our Board Representatives only asked for the ‘updated rulebook’ before filing the protest but what i said was: even before the La Salle - Ateneo game.

This is an assertion of FACT. And for this, I have already previously asked you for your BASIS. And when I asked you if you were privy to the actions by your board members, you simply said that you had learned about these things through your "elders."

Yes, that is an assertion of fact. But that fact is something that I only heard from my “elders.” Even so, it doesn’t mean that there’s no truth to it.





How on earth would we know what rule was amended? So until we get our copy of the rulebook, IF there were violations made by the other schools based on the rulebook that we have, we would be defensive in a way to note in our protest what rule we know and ask first if that rule was amended or not?

Which is why your earlier assertion is inconsistent: apparently, La Salle DID NOT KNOW of the updated rules, because it FAILED to properly secure an updated rulebook. Had La Salle truly known about an updated rulebook, La Salle, in its protest, ought to have been more cautious as to the provisions it was citing, being fully aware that it could have been mistaken with regard to the precise provisions it was citing.

The FACT that La Salle DID NOT KNOW that the rules were amended further undermines your theory that it knew of an updated rulebook. Which is why I have repeatedly asked you to reconcile the conflicting versions of fact, which you have, thus far, failed to do.

Again, I did not say La Salle knew that there was an updated rulebook. What I said was, La Salle asked for a copy of the rulebook used for the whole duration of Season 69 JUST IN CASE THERE WERE CHANGES. Again, asking for the rulebook used all through Season 69 doesn’t mean we know that the rulebook was updated.

Let me then clarify what I meant when I said, “La Salle did not know the changes in the rules because it failed to secure the updated rulebook.” It is only now that we know about the “updated rulebook” isn’t it? It was only after the Commissioner denied La Salle’s protest that we knew about the “updated rulebook.” So when I said La Salle did not know the changes in the rules because it failed to secure the updated rulebook, I was talking about the “updated rulebook” that we now know of.

Let's just say that since our Board Representatives did ask the Board for the rulebook and it was not given to La Salle, maybe our Board Representatives thought that there were no changes in the rules. And so when we filed our protest, we used the existing rulebook that we have.

I failed to reconcile the conflicting versions of fact because there’s no conflicting versions. As i said, asking for the rulebook of last season doesn't mean La Salle knew about the "updated rulebook."



Yes. Do you?

But of course.ü



Expecting the board to run after you with a rulebook isn't too much. It's just ridiculous.

So asking the Board to inform La Salle about the “updated rulebook” ---- is ridiculous? Ow sorry, i didn't know that.

atenean_blooded
09-07-2007, 01:19 AM
Yes, that is an assertion of fact. But that fact is something that I only heard from my “elders.” Even so, it doesn’t mean that there’s no truth to it.

Then how do you reconcile the different versions?


Again, I did not say La Salle knew that there was an updated rulebook. What I said was, La Salle asked for a copy of the rulebook used for the whole duration of Season 69 JUST IN CASE THERE WERE CHANGES. Again, asking for the rulebook used all through Season 69 doesn’t mean we know that the rulebook was updated.

This is now inconsistent with your previous posts.

The premise of your original set of arguments was that the Board failed to give La Salle a copy of the rulebook it failed to secure. This is where you predicated the core of your your original arguments, which was that the reason La Salle did not know about the updated rules was because it did not know of the existence of an updated rulebook.

You did say:

"excuse me, it's not just a matter of misquoting the wrong provision, we didn't know it was changed. kaya nga nagulat kmi dba. hindi lng un rule number ang mali eh, the rule itself. iba na un rule"

"La Salle was ignorant for not knowing the changes in the rules and for not being able to secure a copy of the updated rulebook that's why La Salle quoted the wrong provision in their protest."

And again, the FACT that La Salle DID NOT KNOW that the rules were amended further undermines your theory that it knew of an updated rulebook. And now, you are arguing that La Salle asked for the rulebook "just in case" there were changes. In which case, and you have not answered this, why was not proper reservation in the La Salle protest made? And why did you say "kaya nga nagulat kmi dba(sic)"? Sarcasm?


Let me then clarify what I meant when I said, “La Salle did not know the changes in the rules because it failed to secure the updated rulebook.” It is only now that we know about the “updated rulebook” isn’t it? It was only after the Commissioner denied La Salle’s protest that we knew about the “updated rulebook.” So when I said La Salle did not know the changes in the rules because it failed to secure the updated rulebook, I was talking about the “updated rulebook” that we now know of.

Then this is inconsistent with your statement, quoted and replied to above.



Let's just say that since our Board Representatives did ask the Board for the rulebook and it was not given to La Salle, maybe our Board Representatives thought that there were no changes in the rules. And so when we filed our protest, we used the existing rulebook that we have.

Factual basis?



I failed to reconcile the conflicting versions of fact because there’s no conflicting versions. As i said, asking for the rulebook of last season doesn't mean La Salle knew about the "updated rulebook."

Wrong. Re-read.


But of course.ü

Apparently not, if we go by the inconsistencies in your reasoning.



So asking the Board to inform La Salle about the “updated rulebook” ---- is ridiculous? Ow sorry, i didn't know that.


Asking is different from expecting.

bananafrap
09-08-2007, 12:01 AM
Again, I did not say La Salle knew that there was an updated rulebook. What I said was, La Salle asked for a copy of the rulebook used for the whole duration of Season 69 JUST IN CASE THERE WERE CHANGES. Again, asking for the rulebook used all through Season 69 doesn’t mean we know that the rulebook was updated.

This is now inconsistent with your previous posts.

The premise of your original set of arguments was that the Board failed to give La Salle a copy of the rulebook it failed to secure. This is where you predicated the core of your your original arguments, which was that the reason La Salle did not know about the updated rules was because it did not know of the existence of an updated rulebook.

You did say:

"excuse me, it's not just a matter of misquoting the wrong provision, we didn't know it was changed. kaya nga nagulat kmi dba. hindi lng un rule number ang mali eh, the rule itself. iba na un rule"

"La Salle was ignorant for not knowing the changes in the rules and for not being able to secure a copy of the updated rulebook that's why La Salle quoted the wrong provision in their protest."

And again, the FACT that La Salle DID NOT KNOW that the rules were amended further undermines your theory that it knew of an updated rulebook. And now, you are arguing that La Salle asked for the rulebook "just in case" there were changes. In which case, and you have not answered this, why was not proper reservation in the La Salle protest made? And why did you say "kaya nga nagulat kmi dba(sic)"? Sarcasm?

In Filipino, hiningi ng La Salle ang kopya ng rulebook na ginamit noong nakaraang taon na hindi alam kung ito ba ay may mga pagbabago o wala. At sa anumang dahilan, ito ay hindi nakuha ng La Salle kaya’t walang alam ang La Salle sa mga nasabing mga pagbabago. Ibig sabihin, hindi alam ng La Salle na meron na palang “updated rulebook.”

Yes, I did say that we didn’t know that the said rule was changed. Kaya nga nagulat kami hindi ba? And that’s the truth; we didn’t know that the rulebook was updated. I have no other theories whatsoever. Again, when La Salle asked for the copy of the rulebook of Season 69, it doesn’t mean that they know that the said rulebook was updated. Ang again, when I said “La Salle was ignorant for not knowing the changes in the rules and for not being able to secure a copy of the updated rulebook,” I was talking about the “updated rulebook” we NOW know.

Para mas maintindihan mo ng maigi ang sinabi ko, ipapaliwanag ko na ito nang magkahiwalay. Una ang “La Salle was ignorant for not knowing the changes in the rules.” May pagkukulang ang La Salle dahil hindi nila alam o hindi nalaman na may mga pagbabago na pala sa mga alituntunin. Pangalawa naman ay iyung kasunod kong sinabing “for not being able to secure a copy of the updated rulebook.” Dahil hindi alam ng La Salle na may mga pagbabago sa mga alituntunin at kahit sinubukan nilang humingi ng kopya ng rulebook na ginamit noong nakaraang taon, hindi nila ito nakuha kaya’t hindi nila alam na “updated rulebook” na pala ito. Ngayon na lamang o noong binasura ni ginoong Ed Cordero ang protesta ng La Salle ay saka lamang nalaman ng nasabing eskwelahan na meron na palang “updated rulebook.” Kaya wala akong anumang hakahaka na alam ng La Salle na mayroong pagbabago sa mga alituntunin at alam na mayroong tinatawag na “updated rulebook” dahil ang hawak lamang nila ay ang orihinal nilang kopya ng rulebook. Uulitin ko, noong sinabi ko na hindi nakakuha ang La Salle ng “updated rulebook,” ang tinutukoy kong “updated rulebook” ay ang “updated rulebook” na nalaman lamang ng La Salle noong nabusara ang kanilang protesta. Hindi nga namin alam na naiba na pala ang nasabing alituntunin eh, paano kaya namin masasabi na alam ng La Salle na “updated” na pala ang rulebook?





Let's just say that since our Board Representatives did ask the Board for the rulebook and it was not given to La Salle, maybe our Board Representatives thought that there were no changes in the rules. And so when we filed our protest, we used the existing rulebook that we have.

Factual basis?

I have no ‘factual basis’ on this one because this is what you could say as my THEORY. I had no other theories before this one.

La Salle asked for the rulebook used all through Season 69 but no other rulebook got into the hands of the said school. And so the only rulebook that La Salle had by the time they filed the protest was the existing rulebook that they have. That’s why La Salle cited the wrong provision because they based their protest on the rulebook that they have. And since they were not aware of the “updated rulebook” or the changes in the rules, no proper reservation was needed.





So asking the Board to inform La Salle about the “updated rulebook” ---- is ridiculous? Ow sorry, i didn't know that.


Asking is different from expecting.

Yes, I expected that since La Salle was not aware of the “updated” one, the Board should have given La Salle their copy of the “updated rulebook.” But as you said, it’s not part of their so-called duties to ‘run after the school’ with the “updated rulebook.” However, my other issue was, why the Board did not even inform the said school about the “updated rulebook.”

atenean_blooded
09-08-2007, 01:54 AM
In Filipino, hiningi ng La Salle ang kopya ng rulebook na ginamit noong nakaraang taon na hindi alam kung ito ba ay may mga pagbabago o wala. At sa anumang dahilan, ito ay hindi nakuha ng La Salle kaya’t walang alam ang La Salle sa mga nasabing mga pagbabago. Ibig sabihin, hindi alam ng La Salle na meron na palang “updated rulebook.”

This is a third branch of your already inconsistent theories.



Yes, I did say that we didn’t know that the said rule was changed. Kaya nga nagulat kami hindi ba? And that’s the truth; we didn’t know that the rulebook was updated. I have no other theories whatsoever. Again, when La Salle asked for the copy of the rulebook of Season 69, it doesn’t mean that they know that the said rulebook was updated. Ang again, when I said “La Salle was ignorant for not knowing the changes in the rules and for not being able to secure a copy of the updated rulebook,” I was talking about the “updated rulebook” we NOW know.

You first wrote about securing a copy of an updated rulebook.

Now you say that you were asking for the rulebook used in Season 69.

Quick points:

1. Basis?

2. If La Salle did not know of an updated cheerbook (or an updated set of rules), how could it have been "gulat" about the changes, granted that it had every reason to rely on the rules which it was aware of?

3. Given the answer to #2, again, why no reservation?



Para mas maintindihan mo ng maigi ang sinabi ko, ipapaliwanag ko na ito nang magkahiwalay. Una ang “La Salle was ignorant for not knowing the changes in the rules.” May pagkukulang ang La Salle dahil hindi nila alam o hindi nalaman na may mga pagbabago na pala sa mga alituntunin. Pangalawa naman ay iyung kasunod kong sinabing “for not being able to secure a copy of the updated rulebook.” Dahil hindi alam ng La Salle na may mga pagbabago sa mga alituntunin at kahit sinubukan nilang humingi ng kopya ng rulebook na ginamit noong nakaraang taon, hindi nila ito nakuha kaya’t hindi nila alam na “updated rulebook” na pala ito. Ngayon na lamang o noong binasura ni ginoong Ed Cordero ang protesta ng La Salle ay saka lamang nalaman ng nasabing eskwelahan na meron na palang “updated rulebook.” Kaya wala akong anumang hakahaka na alam ng La Salle na mayroong pagbabago sa mga alituntunin at alam na mayroong tinatawag na “updated rulebook” dahil ang hawak lamang nila ay ang orihinal nilang kopya ng rulebook. Uulitin ko, noong sinabi ko na hindi nakakuha ang La Salle ng “updated rulebook,” ang tinutukoy kong “updated rulebook” ay ang “updated rulebook” na nalaman lamang ng La Salle noong nabusara ang kanilang protesta. Hindi nga namin alam na naiba na pala ang nasabing alituntunin eh, paano kaya namin masasabi na alam ng La Salle na “updated” na pala ang rulebook?

See above.



I have no ‘factual basis’ on this one because this is what you could say as my THEORY. I had no other theories before this one.

La Salle asked for the rulebook used all through Season 69 but no other rulebook got into the hands of the said school. And so the only rulebook that La Salle had by the time they filed the protest was the existing rulebook that they have. That’s why La Salle cited the wrong provision because they based their protest on the rulebook that they have. And since they were not aware of the “updated rulebook” or the changes in the rules, no proper reservation was needed.

Again, basis? Particularly for the distinction you are trying to draw.



Yes, I expected that since La Salle was not aware of the “updated” one, the Board should have given La Salle their copy of the “updated rulebook.” But as you said, it’s not part of their so-called duties to ‘run after the school’ with the “updated rulebook.” However, my other issue was, why the Board did not even inform the said school about the “updated rulebook.”

This proposition is circular.

flsfnoeraekadad
09-08-2007, 02:03 AM
You know guys, just stop. You can never fully grasp what you never had first-hand.

eightyfiver
09-08-2007, 01:24 PM
With the flight of ideas turning ugly, I move that this thread be LOCKED.

john_paul_manahan
09-08-2007, 06:39 PM
i think with the constant reposting of facts... a warning on bananafrap is in order...

i think this has gone on too long.....

cobym
09-08-2007, 08:15 PM
All I can say is "Ignorance of the law excuses no one."

Jump_Shooter
09-08-2007, 10:50 PM
Uh, what are you guys talking about now? This thread has gone on long enough and has strayed far away from the topic. It's getting tiring. Locking...