I have followed the debate and even spoken to some of the anonymous posters. It is cut and dry. GC had an 8 year old in cage, no older brothers or anything like that.
As we discussed earlier today, we have been given the identity of the goalie and have been satisfied that the age requirements are all proper. At this point, BOTC will be halting any further discussion of the age issues in this match. No accusers have produced proper documentation while those defending have supplied us with credible details.
GC is only guilty of having a faulty roster, meaninig they have 4 teams all with age appropriate kids but that the rosters for the individual teams may not reflect the actual kids playing on that team. I am a coach for a PAL team and we had to add a few kids to our roster after we submitted it to PAL. my town only has 40 kids playing so if you have 90-100 I can see this being a real problem. My opinion is that this is sloppy administrative leadership at GC but that's all. Nothing too controversial, no ringers, no older brothers, no win at all costs.
Lacrosse's loose rostering procedures is at the root of much of this discussion and certainly provides the genesis of the age questions. The fact that a roster can change from week-to-week in a league environment just makes no sense to us.
From a BOTC perspective it's a little disappointing as there is really nothing to see here, other than the person who claimed there was an older brother in cage should have some accountability.
As stated earlier today, BOTC can and did research the issue and we are satisfied that the information we have in hand is credible. We are convinced that our original posters claiming "foul" were not properly informed.
