READER'S VIEWS: The truth behind the walkout

So much has been said by CESAFI Commissioner Felix O. Tiukinhoy, Jr. and his wards regarding the walkout of the volleyball coaches from the University of San Carlos, University of the Visayas and the University of Southern Philippines Foundation. But we have not heard from these coaches why they staged such a walkout.

What really was the specific rule which was the basis of the disqualification of the USJR player before the screening committee? Did the USJ-R coach protest the disqualification in front of the screening committee?

CESAFI Tournament rules states that:ANY PLAYER OF A MEMBER SCHOOL WHO TRANSFERS TO ANOTHER MEMBER SCHOOL IS REQUIRED A MINIMUM RESIDENCE OF TWO (2) SEMESTERS BEFORE HE IS ALLOWED TO PLAY.

The Commissioner interpreted this rule as applicable only to active players and irrelevant to a player who has stopped schooling for 2 years. His interpretation can nowhere be found in the stated rule. The interpretation of the Commissioner is bereft of merit.

     The above rule did not distinguish between an active player and a player who has stopped schooling for 2 years. Meaning, the word “active” can never be found in the above stated rule. What is relevant in this rule are the words “transfer” and “minimum residence of 2 semesters”. In other words, rules must be interpreted according to what is stated and we should not give any other meaning to it for to do so would create not just a gray area but a muddy area.

When the USJ-R player was disqualified by the screening committee, USJ-R coach Grace Antigua was there. She did not object or even questioned the disqualification of her player. If ever there was a venue to question the disqualification of the player, it should have been done face to face with the screening committee and not to the Commissioner because he has no personal knowledge of what transpired during the screening. By not questioning the decision of the screening committee, it was presumed that she accepted the decision of the committee and by not doing so, the USJ-R coach was sleeping on her right except if she has other sneaky plans.

The records show that the player was then declared disqualified by the coaches and the record was signed. Since there was no protest raised during the screening, the screening committee thought that the USJ-R coach accepted their decision therefore the USJ-R coach has no right to go to the Commissioner for an appeal. What is there to appeal when there was no protest during the screening. The USJ-R coach should have first protested during the screening before appealing to the Commissioner. 

Assuming for the sake of argument that the appeal was valid, is it not wise for the Commissioner to hear the side of the screening committee also? As a good father to a family, the Commissioner should have exercise due diligence by calling a meeting with the screening committee so that he can decide on the case properly.

The Commissioner’s decision allowing the USJ-R player to play was questionable because it was based on a decision coming only from the inputs of the USJ-R coach and neglecting the screening committee’s side. When there is an appeal, both sides must be heard. The Commissioner did not even bother to do this. The Commissioner abused his discretion.

Because of this, the screening committee, composed of coaches from the different member schools felt that there was no due process before the Commissioner made his decision allowing the disqualified player to play.

* * *

EDITOR’S NOTE: This section is intended for readers who wish to share their views, comments or reactions to a wide-range of issues related to sports. Publication is subject to the discretion of the editor.