аЯрЁБс>ўџ 8:ўџџџ7џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅС3 №ПЖbjbjЙЙ ",л{л{Жџџџџџџl\\\\\\\p\ \ \ \ h $pOh˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ Юаааааа$З зжє\˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ єи \\˜ ˜ и и и ˜ њ\˜ \˜ Юи ˜ Юи 6и rКT\\К˜ Œ PAKжЪpь\ ’ .К0Ož­Р ­Ки pp\\\\йDecision of the CIS Appeal Panel Regarding the 2009 CIS Men’s Hockey Championships Draw Background: 1. On Friday, March 20, 2009 the CIS Men’s Hockey Seeding Committee met by conference call and determined the seedings for the 2009 Championship (discussing the options available depending on an Alberta or Saskatchewan CWUAA final).   2. On Sunday March 22, 2009 Sheila-Ann Newton from the CIS office circulated the 2009 CIS Men’s Hockey Seeding and Schedule to the participating teams.   3. On Sunday, March 22, the University of Alberta submitted notice of an appeal of the seedings arguing that the CIS policies were not followed.   4. Unlike other some CIS sports where the Playing Regulations specify that seedings may not be appealed, the Men’s Hockey PR do not make this exclusion. The appeal policies do exclude “field of play” playing regulations (i.e. what happens on the court or field or rink) from what may be appealed. Seedings are not considered field of play decisions. 5. Given that time was of the essence, CIS policy 90.40.13.2 (see below) was applied and a conference call was convened on March 22 at 7:00 PM EST: For extraordinary situations which require an immediate resolution, as determined by the CEO or the President in their sole discretion, the President and CEO and a third person independent of the dispute shall convene a conference call of the affected parties. After hearing all affected parties’ versions of the events, an oral decision will be rendered within 24 hours. If the President or CEO is in a conflict situation they shall be replaced by one of the Past President/President Elect and/or one of the vice-presidents of CIS. Appeal Panellists: Clint Hamilton, Lorne Adams, and Marg McGregor. Marg McGregor chaired the conference call and served as recording secretary for the panel. Parties who participated in the Call: The appellant: Dale Schulha – University of Alberta [participating team in the 2009 MHockey Championship] The Respondent: Sheila Ann Newton – CIS [CIS Men’s Hockey Seeding Committee] Kevin Figsby – President of the Men’s Hockey Coaches Association [CIS Men’s Hockey Seeding Committee] Affected Parties: Trevor Steinburg – Saint Mary’s [participating team] Lisen Moore – McGill [participating team] Don McKee – Lakehead [participating team and Host] Chuck Mathies – Western [participating team] Kevin Dickie – UNB [participating team] Perspectives of the Appellant and Respondent: The Appellant (Alberta): The University of Alberta argued that the Seeding Committee misinterpreted of the seeding policies in the CIS Playing Regulations. The University of Alberta disagreed with the seeding committee’s interpretation of Men’s Ice Hockey Playing Regulation D.2.1.a to award the top seed based on the final conference ranking rather than the individual teams’ rankings. As taken from the CIS Men’s Hockey Playing Regulations: http://www.universitysport.ca/e/play_regs/documents/HockeyM_001.pdf D.2 DRAW, POOLS, SEEDINGS, TRIALS AND HEATS D.2.1 SEEDING The pools shall be seeded as follows: a. The three (3) Sport Conference champions will be seeded 1st, 2nd, and 3rd based on their relative national ranking in the final Top Ten of the season. The University of Alberta argued that the Golden Bears Hockey team demonstrated the highest relative ranking of the teams in the tournament and as such should be the #1 seeded team in the tournament. The rationale is as follows: As of the final CIS Top 10 ranking (Feb 17/09) the University of Alberta was the second ranked team in the country only behind the University of New Brunswick Varsity Reds. The University of Alberta Golden Bears are Canada West champions. The UNB Varsity Reds (#1 in Feb. 17/09 Top Ten) were defeated in AUS championships by Saint Mary’s University (#4 ranked). #6 ranked Western defeated #3 ranked Wilfrid Laurier University in the OUA final. Using the Feb. 17/09 Top 10 ranking, the sport conference champions are ranked as follows: University of Alberta #2, St. Mary’s #4 and University of Western Ontario #6. As the highest ranked team to win a sport conference championship, the University of Alberta should receive the #1 seed into the championship tournament. In CIS men’s ice hockey, seeding has never been based on final conference rankings but rather on the individual team rankings. The Respondent (CIS) Kevin Figsby acknowledged that there were two interpretations for the seedings, and that there are flaws in the Playing Regulations in that they refer to the Top 10 rankings, but Top 10 rankings end before the play-offs. Kevin Figsby argued that while there is a grey area in the Playing Rankings the Seeding Committee applied what they believed to be “the spirit” of the Regulations. The regulations state: a) The three (3) Sport Conference champions will be seeded 1st, 2nd, and 3rd based on their relative national ranking in the final Top Ten of the season. The term “relative national ranking” does not state the final rankings as listed. The word relative refers to ranking as a reference tool. With there being no ranking following what transpired in playoffs it allowed flexibility for the seeding committee to consider playoff performance. With Saint Mary’s beating UNB for the AUS title, and with UNB being ranked the Number 1 team in the country, it allowed for SMU to move to that position. Decision and Reasons: The Appeal Committee is of the view that the Seeding Committee made a procedural error and therefore the Alberta appeal is upheld. The application of “the spirit” of the rule, or going by what has been done in the past is not procedurally correct if it contradicts what appears in the Playing Regulations. The Appeal Committee could not see any reference in the Playing Regulations to seedings being done on conference strength or conference relative rankings. A revised seeding for the tournament should be issued by CIS forthwith. The panel understands how there could be more than one interpretation of the Playing Regulations as written. This ambiguity and lack of clarity in the Playing Regulations is a source of great angst for Seeding Committees, participating teams, Championship Hosts and others. The panel empathizes with teams and parties who are impacted by the situation. The Men’s Hockey Playing Regulations and others need to be clarified and enhanced for the 2009-2010 season. The inconsistency between the Playing Regulations making reference to a Top 10 procedure, which cannot be followed because Top 10s conclude before play-offs needs to be resolved. The composition of the Top 10 committee was also raised by one of the parties as something that deserves review. When the Top 10 is used for more than marketing purposes, careful thought needs to be given to who makes the Top 10 decisions. The panel directed the CEO to take steps to ensure that CIS policies and internal practices are revised such that a circumstance like this does not occur again. Verbal decision delivered March 22, 2009. Written reasons delivered: June 20, 2009. XYeнr‡ ˆ › ' N j ˜ ™ В Xœ<>ACJM  ЂЃЛјњ§џ+,ОbЖ§ђфеђЭђ§ђфђфђСеАееееђСђ”ђ‹‹‹‹фђеђs6CJOJQJ]^JaJCJH*OJQJ^JCJOJQJ^JOJQJ^JaJ$B*CJEHH*OJQJ^JaJph >*B*CJOJQJ^JaJph5CJOJQJ^JaJ6CJ]aJB*CJOJQJ^JaJph5CJOJQJ\^JaJCJOJQJ^JaJaJ(!XYeNPшъ|~ноr‡ ˆ › Ь ' ( N ^ К Л Ы њњјјюшюшюшюјкејгјјјјјјјј$a$ Цh„h„˜ў^„h`„˜ў„h^„h „h„˜ў^„h`„˜ў$a$Ж§Ы o p ‚ З с  A i j ˜ ™ В 67 Ъй›œef„§§§§§§§§§§§§§їїїїїїїюїїїїї $7$8$H$a$7$8$H$„2uёDю‰   §ўЂЃVW+,АьииььььжжжжжжжжжжЙжжж$ Ц @ рА€P №Р!„и „˜ў^„и `„˜ўa$ & F Ц аh „h7$8$H$^„h & F Цаh„h7$8$H$^„hАБab§ўGH[\ЋЌЬЭНОabŒЖ§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ 1hАа/ Ар=!А8"А8#8$8%А i8@ёџ8 NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH B@B Heading 1$@&5CJOJQJ\^JHH Heading 2$$@&a$5CJOJQJ\^J<A@ђџЁ< Default Paragraph FontRC@ђR Body Text Indent$„h^„ha$CJOJQJ^J6B6 Body TextCJOJQJ^J@ў@  Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJZўёџ"Z Default 7$8$H$-B*CJOJQJ^J_HaJmH phsH tH Ж,џџџџ!XYeNPшъ|~ноr‡ˆ›Ь'(N^КЛЫ op‚Зс A i j ˜ ™ В 6 7   Ъ й › œ e f „ 2uёDю‰   §ўЂЃVW+,АБab§ўGH[\ЋЌЬЭНОabŒИ0€€0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜@0€є ˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€ЖЫ „АЖЖглAIЩбЇЏ™cjЄЋ‰’ЗМэѕ ! G M < > A C &,fn БЙИXYY\МТИ33XXRSьэ€ууII’’••d l Л М tu\] NVККFNЋЋррb•ЇДЕИџџSNEWTONC:\Documents and Settings\Sheila\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Decision CIS Appeal Panel re 2009 Men's Hockey draw.asdSNEWTON†C:\Documents and Settings\Sheila\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK64\Decision CIS Appeal Panel re 2009 Men's Hockey draw.doc `\\192.168.16.2\company\Files-Marg\Hockey\Decision CIS Appeal Panel re 2009 Men's Hockey draw.doc C:\Documents and Settings\mmcgregor.CIS\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKFA\Decision CIS Appeal Panel re 2009 Men's Hockey draw.docЋ Оfўљˆџџџџџџџџџ {MљЏѓџџџџџџџџџЁ-ЪW`эNџџџџџџџџџY xДЄŠgџџџџџџџџџZ„а„˜ўЦа^„а`„˜ўOJPJQJ^Jo(-€ „ „˜ўЦ ^„ `„˜ўOJQJo(o€ „p„˜ўЦp^„p`„˜ўOJQJo(Ї№€ „@ „˜ўЦ@ ^„@ `„˜ўOJQJo(З№€ „„˜ўЦ^„`„˜ўOJQJo(o€ „р„˜ўЦр^„р`„˜ўOJQJo(Ї№€ „А„˜ўЦА^„А`„˜ўOJQJo(З№€ „€„˜ўЦ€^„€`„˜ўOJQJo(o€ „P„˜ўЦP^„P`„˜ўOJQJo(Ї№h„а„˜ўЦа^„а`„˜ўOJQJo(‡hˆHЗ№„ „˜ўЦ ^„ `„˜ўOJPJQJ^Jo(-h„p„˜ўЦp^„p`„˜ўOJQJo(‡hˆHЇ№h„@ „˜ўЦ@ ^„@ `„˜ўOJQJo(‡hˆHЗ№h„„˜ўЦ^„`„˜ўOJQJ^Jo(‡hˆHoh„р„˜ўЦр^„р`„˜ўOJQJo(‡hˆHЇ№h„А„˜ўЦА^„А`„˜ўOJQJo(‡hˆHЗ№h„€„˜ўЦ€^„€`„˜ўOJQJ^Jo(‡hˆHoh„P„˜ўЦP^„P`„˜ўOJQJo(‡hˆHЇ№Ё-ЪWЋ О {MY xџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ\GЪ         ЬВъ       Иџ@€XXьж“XXЖ@@џџUnknownџџџџџџџџџџџџG‡z €џTimes New Roman5€Symbol3& ‡z €џArial5& ‡za€џTahoma?5 ‡z €џCourier New;€Wingdings"qˆ№аh˜‚жFSи&п„г&й 0шG /д№88ДД20d/ 2ƒq№мHXџџTDecision of the CIS Appeal Panel regarding the 2008 Men s Soccer Championships Draw   ўџр…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0Ф˜  $0@ LX t € Œ ˜ЄЌДМфXDecision of the CIS Appeal Panel regarding the 2008 Men’s Soccer Championships Draw  Normal 5Microsoft Word 9.0@0@’ƒCІЩ@FŽюЩ@>=ŒжЪйўџеЭеœ.“—+,љЎ0< hp|„Œ” œЄЌД М фCIS0 # UDecision of the CIS Appeal Panel regarding the 2008 Men’s Soccer Championships Draw Title ўџџџ !"#$%&ўџџџ()*+,-.ўџџџ0123456ўџџџ§џџџ9ўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РF0™YжЪ;€1Tableџџџџџџџџџџџџ­WordDocumentџџџџџџџџ",SummaryInformation(џџџџ'DocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџџџџџ/CompObjџџџџjObjectPoolџџџџџџџџџџџџ0™YжЪ0™YжЪџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вq