Football: Grasping at straws with "Old Man Montoya"

The verdict from CIS is that Laurier's Dave Montoya is no longer eligible to play, and therefore Laurier's win over Toronto will be forfeited.

Oh, wait.

However, according [to] athletics director Peter Baxter, Laurier is filing a further appeal in front of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC), an independent sports arbitrator.

"We'll file for an arbitrator with [the SDRCC] to hear David's case," said Baxter. "It's basically a second level of dispute resolution."

The instant reaction is about what you'd expect.

After you look at the rules (which some guy admittedly didn't do completely), you can't help but conclude the Hawks are in the wrong here. It seems you need an to appear on the eligibility certificate from 2009-10, which Montoya doesn't have didn't do because he didn't play. [Thanks for the correction, John Edwards.]

The best part about this situation is it's not about Montoya at all, who can't be that important to the team if nobody's raising a stink about feeling a significant loss on the defensive line in recent games. Laurier made a mistake and are trying to avoid the consequences. What "dispute" is there?

Personally, at this point, I just hope they appeal it all the way to the Governor-General.

Laurier pursues additional appeal after CIS rules Montoya ineligible [The Cord]
Next PostNewer Post Previous PostOlder Post Home


  1. I'd like to clarify one thing, since there seems to be some confusion.

    An "eligibility certificate" isn't something a player would have. It is CIS-speak for the official team roster that is filed with the CIS office.

    Montoya presumably did not appear on Laurier's 2009-10 football eligibility certificate, which is why he appears to have fallen afoul of the new rule.

  2. I'm appalled, but not surprised, by the lack of leadership from Laurier. Are they so desperate for that W? Was the ruling against SMU not public before the Laurier-Toronto game? Can't Laurier just admit they read the rule wrong?

    I'm afraid I'll be feeling buckets of schadenfreude if student appeals of grades, residence expulsions, cheating infractions and the like at Laurier skyrocket 'cause students claim they didn't understand the rules ...

  3. Laurier isn't appealing the league decision that they broke the rule, they are appealing the rule itself. It is a rule that doesn't make much sense or have reason for being there. Therefore they are appealing the fact that the rule should exist at all. Please give me a reason as to why you find an attempt to remove this this rule so appalling.

  4. Braden,

    1) If they are not appealing the league decision as you claim, than why haven't they forfeited the game already?

    It would make their case seem stronger. Laurier would have more credibility and would seem to be taking the high road if it gave up the win, without waiting. Otherwise, it seems like they're fighting tooth and nail to keep 1 piddly win.

    2) Who said I was appalled? If I am, it would be because they are going about it the wrong way.

    There are better ways to get a rule changed than by flouting it and then playing the innocent or obfuscating (Baxter's claim the rule is "ambiguous" or changes were made to it between June and Aug. 25).

    3) The rule makes perfect sense. It is meant to create a level playing field for recruiting across the country. It's also meant to get football players to take education seriously, not see it as something they have to in order to play.

    The NCAA rule is even stricter -- five seasons to play four once you enrol in college (with some exceptions).

    If you don't like a rule that essentially means football players should within the age range of the undergraduates, get it changed at the June AGM.

    4) Also, I don't see Laurier proposing anything better. Baxter would have more credibility, for instance, if he demanded all schools publish players' birthdates instead of kowtowing to universities' bullshit privacy concerns.

    Four strikes. You're out.