ࡱ> /1.3 bjbj "&{{lVVVVVVVj0000 <jbhdddddddd$ Vddddd VVdd   dvVdVd d  VVdX @>ĭj0v20b,P  jjVVVVDecision of the CIS Appeal Panel regarding the 2009 CIS Womens Hockey Championships Draw Background: University of Manitoba filed an appeal on March 15/16, 2009 with respect to the draw for the 2009 Women's Hockey Championship, which was circulated by the CIS office on March 15, 2009. 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 16 at 9:30PM 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, Pat Murray, and Katie Sheahan. Marg McGregor chaired the conference call and served as recording secretary for the panel. Parties who participated in the Call: The appellant: Coleen Dufresne University of Manitoba [participating team in the 2009 CISWHockey Championship] The Respondent: Sheila Ann Newton CIS [CIS Womens Hockey Seeding Committee] Dan Church President of the Womens Hockey Coaches Association [CIS Womens Hockey Seeding Committee] Affected Parties: Peter Baxter WLaurier [participating team] Colin Timm uOttawa [participating team] Marc Boudreau Moncton [participating team] Lisen Moore McGill [participating team] Krista McKenna Host and participating team Perspectives of the Appellant and Respondent: The Appellant (Manitoba): The University of Manitoba argued that CIS failed to follow procedures as laid out in the Playing Regulations. In their written submission Manitoba went on to say that women's hockey playing regulations state that Pool A shall consist of teams ranked 1, 4 and 6 and Pool B shall be composed of teams ranked 2, 3 and 5 and that the seeding committee must ensure that competitive balance is achieved and can flip teams 3 and 4 to accomplish this balance. The University of Manitoba is seeded third and by the playing regulations should be in pool B with teams seeded 2 and 5. The playing regulations allow for the third and fourth place teams to be moved to create competitive balance only but not to avoid having two teams from the same sport conference in the same pool. Manitoba argued that the seeding committee was in error when they allowed the flip of teams ranked three and four and the flip should not have been permitted as it created a competitive imbalance between the pools. Manitoba argued that by moving Manitoba to pool A competitive balance was lost. Manitoba has been ranked in the top four all year long and has also defeated both Alberta and Laurier, teams ranked two and three in the last Top Ten. In a draw that sees no 1 through 4 cross-over to reach the gold medal game it is critical that the teams ranked two and three be in the same pool. Manitoba acknowledged that the regulations state that 1 and 2 must be in separate pools as must teams five and six (this helps to ensure competitive balance). Manitoba acknowledged that it is preferred to not have two teams from the same conference in the same pool but argued that competitive balance must take precedence over the latter. The goal of the tournament should be to provide the top teams with a fair opportunity to advance to the final. Placing the first and thirdranked teams in the same pool is not only unfair to both the #1 ranked team and the #3 ranked team but creates an advantagefor the #2 ranked team who is playing seeds lower than those in pool A. (theteam ranked #1plays the third ranked team while the team ranked #2 plays the fourth ranked team - a lower seed, and the #1 seed plays the fifth ranked team while the second place team plays the sixth seed) The Respondent (CIS) - The seeding committee reviewed D.2.3 of the playing regulations. - The seeding committee agreed that in respecting a) Two teams from the same Sport Conference shall be in a separate pools McGill could not be in the same pool as Ottawa and Moncton could not be in the same pool as StFX. - The words shall be are considered a directive as in they MUST be followed. - In looking at c) 3 and 4 may be flipped to ensure competitive balance in the pools, the seeding committee agreed that may be flipped is not a directive and therefore is not a must. 3 and 4 could not be flipped as this would have been in conflict with trying to ensure two teams from the same conference are in separate pools. Decision and Reasons: As much as members of the appeal panel may disagree with the outcome of the draw for the 2009 Womens Hockey Championship, the appeal panel is of the view that the Seeding Committee respected the rules given the circumstances therefore the Manitoba appeal is denied. The appeal panel is not convinced that a procedural error took place, and is of the view that the application of the rules as done by the Seeding Committee was proper and within reason. Although the decision was one the University of Manitoba did not agree with, it was not at odds with the Playing Regulations. The Seeding Committee followed the language in the Playing Regulations that was prescriptive and directive, and applied the prescriptive rules. The panel empathizes with teams and parties who are impacted by the situation and has 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 The Womens Hockey Playing Regulations need to be reviewed by Sport Committee, and the Womens Hockey Coaches Association, clarified and enhanced for the 2009-2010 season. Verbal decision delivered March 17, 2009. Written reasons delivered: June 20, 2008. Z[ge a .896OJQJ]^JB*OJQJ^Jph5OJQJ^J 6CJ]5OJQJ\^J OJQJ^JCJ!Z[g ! ef  P $ Q { $a$$a$ b c TU.^ L^`L $1$7$8$H$a$1$7$8$H$789c 1h/ =!8"8#8$8% i8@8 NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH B@B Heading 1$@&5CJOJQJ\^JHH Heading 2$$@&a$5CJOJQJ\^J<A@< Default Paragraph FontRC@R Body Text Indent$h^ha$CJOJQJ^J6B6 Body TextCJOJQJ^J@@  Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJTR@"T Body Text Indent 2L^`L OJQJ^J&!Z[g ! efP$Q{bc T U .^789c0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 QV !*Z[  T ] dg/633333333ZZ((889r~SNEWTONC:\Documents and Settings\Sheila\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK64\Decision CIS Appeal Panel re 2009 Women's Hockey draw.doc b\\192.168.16.2\company\Files-Marg\Hockey\Decision CIS Appeal Panel re 2009 Women's Hockey draw.doc-W`NZ^`OJPJQJ^Jo(- ^`OJQJo(o pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o PP^P`OJQJo(-W\G        @ZZx ZZ0@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial5& zaTahoma?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"qhFF߄& hk )P (8820d72qHXTDecision of the CIS Appeal Panel regarding the 2008 Men s Soccer Championships Draw   Oh+'0 $0@ LX t   XDecision of the CIS Appeal Panel regarding the 2008 Mens Soccer Championships Draw  Normal 10Microsoft Word 9.0@ԭ@C@v#Y@̩hk՜.+,0< hp|  CIS) # UDecision of the CIS Appeal Panel regarding the 2008 Mens Soccer Championships Draw Title  !"#$%'()*+,-0Root Entry F]ĭ21TableWordDocument"&SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8&CompObjjObjectPool]ĭ]ĭ  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q