Watch out

[prototoast]

Compliance people for our records. If one person says the described situation like a sponsorship is ok, then another NCAA compliance person can't declare it being illegal at a later date as long as you have the record (email).

That sounds entirely untrue.

[Phincer]

That sounds entirely untrue.

Please inform us as to the rule, and can you provide the link? Thanks.

[prototoast]

Please inform us as to the rule, and can you provide the link? Thanks.

I see what you did there.

[Mo]

Please inform us as to the rule, and can you provide the link? Thanks.

You need to talk to the compliance officer at your school or the compliance officer with whom you have a relationship.
Doesn't it make sense that if you get an ok for a situation and have proof of that, it will stick?
After all you are following the spirit of the NCAA rules and doing your best to comply with them.
The NCAA doesn't want to disqualify a student.
A serious question with a serious reply will not get over turned at a later date as long as you have the response documented.
All the NCAA links go to particular schools.

The Momster

[Philistine]

Please inform us as to the rule, and can you provide the link? Thanks.

The rule seems to be the 5.4.1.2 series in the Div. I Manual (for Div 1 schools, but I assume it's the same for all). Essentially, Membership Service Staff provide interpretations on inquiry which are binding on schools (and athletes) (unless overturned by the Interpretation Committee).

In any event, I can't conceive of action taken in reliance on a staff interpretation resulting in a violation, even if that interpretation is later changed. (Things done before the interpretation, that are later determined were violations could be, I suppose).

Here is the2008-09 Div 1 Manual

--Philistine

[Phincer]

The rule seems to be the 5.4.1.2 series in the Div. I Manual (for Div 1 schools, but I assume it's the same for all). Essentially, Membership Service Staff provide interpretations on inquiry which are binding on schools (and athletes) (unless overturned by the Interpretation Committee).

In any event, I can't conceive of action taken in reliance on a staff interpretation resulting in a violation, even if that interpretation is later changed. (Things done before the interpretation, that are later determined were violations could be, I suppose).

Here is the2008-09 Div 1 Manual

--Philistine

Thank you so much! Off to read....

[Purple Fencer]

There was a watch that was awarded to Becca from the FIE when she won the World Cup Championship this year. Andrea went to Paris and retrieved her "stuff" but we first checked with the compliance officer at Duke and were told she could not accept the watch.

Out of curiosity....would it have caused a problem if FIE were to hold the watch until she was out of the NCAA's jurisdiction??

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Probably not. The problem was "receiving" the watch. However; I can't imagine the FIE holding onto a likely donated watch for four years, until they could safely deliver it.

[Purple Fencer]

Probably not. The problem was "receiving" the watch. However; I can't imagine the FIE holding onto a likely donated watch for four years, until they could safely deliver it.

USFA might tho...or someone unconnected to the recipient...something like an escrow holding.

[dcmdale]

USFA might tho...or someone unconnected to the recipient...something like an escrow holding.

Its been tried and the NCAA has rejected it in other sports.

http://www1.ncaa.org/eprise/main/Pub...wimAmMemo.html