Re: Pacers???
Posted by J & JC on September 5, 2012, 2:07 pm, in reply to "
Re: Pacers???"
Just a few notes about the situation in the Ladies’ class on Saturday. Courtney was never considered a real pacer and should not have been referred to as a pacer; she had to be designated as such in the computer so that her points and ringers did not interfere with the outcome of the Ladies’ B and C classes, but her ringer percentage and shoe count were being kept for the Junior Girls A championship. The ladies in B and C did automatically get the win in the computer, like playing a pacer, but Courtney’s wins and losses were being kept separately for her class. She was placed where she was because there was no girl for her to actually compete with, considering the difference in her percentage and McKenzie’s and it was determined that putting her in the Junior Boys' A class would be inappropriate. As to whether or not Courtney was eligible to advance to the Ladies’ A class, there was a notation on the schedule that the two highest percentages for the women would advance and Courtney was specifically designated as a Girl in the list. In retrospect, that probably should have been explicitly explained to both Courtney and her competitors, but at the time everyone in a position to explain it, assumed it was understood since it was on the schedule. Since Courtney would automatically win the Junior Girls trophy and monetary prize, it would not have been fair for her to also be eligible for the Ladies’ trophy and monetary prize.
|
Message Thread
- Pacers??? - Gayla September 2, 2012, 5:52 am
- Re: Pacers??? - Robert September 2, 2012, 8:20 am
- Re: Pacers??? - Gayla September 2, 2012, 9:41 am
- Re: Pacers??? - Robert September 3, 2012, 4:23 pm
- Re: Pacers??? - Courtney September 4, 2012, 3:38 pm
- Re: Pacers??? - Y September 5, 2012, 12:18 pm
- Re: Pacers??? - Courtney October 6, 2012, 10:50 am
- Re: Pacers??? - J & JC September 5, 2012, 2:07 pm
« Back to index |