EBU selection committee meeting

[Walddk]

BBO has not been approached on this issue by the EBU, and whether that will happen or not in the future, this is our policy:

 

If a particular commentator volunteers for a particular broadcast, it it not our concern if that player’s bridge federation, wife, parents, etc. do not approve.

 

We let each commentator be responsible for making his own decisions. We have enough to do already and it is not reasonable for us to concern ourselves with such things. If a commentator gets himself in trouble by volunteering to be involved in a broadcast that someone outside of BBO does not approve of, that is their problem, not ours.

 

Surely no federation can be expecting us to enforce any such decision for them.

 

I hope that day will never come when a federation asks us not to invite certain individuals, but if it comes, we know what to tell them.

 

Roland

[hrothgar]

How should they deal with this?

From my perspective, there are three different policies that the Selection Committee might consider

 

1. Follow the fine example of Pontius Pilate and wash your hands of the entire matter. State explicitly that the Selection Committee doesn't get involved in these types of issues.

 

2. Establish a "blanket" ban. Ban any/all juniors from making any kind of public commentary regarding their team mates.

 

3. Deal with issues on a case by case basis...

 

If I were the advising the Selections committee, I'd recommend adopting either policy 1 or 2. Furthermore, I'd make this recommendation believing that policy 3 is the most flexible and the one that is most likely to produce a good solution to the problem. However, I believe that the costs of administering Policy 3 would outweigh any potential benefits. Equally significant, any such system is going to be inherently subjective. I strongly prefer to limit subjective assessment whenever possible.

 

I admit to a slight preference for policy 1, however, I could live with policy 2.

[barmar]

The conclusion must be that the day you turn 26 you are in a much better position to judge. I don't buy that argument. Skills and maturity count, not age. We have many U-25 commentators with excellent judgement.

Yes, maturity is what counts, but there's no way to legislate maturity. So, just as with voting, drinking, driving, and marriage, age is used as a convenient stand-in. Of course you don't suddenly gain judgement the day you turn 26, but neither does your ability to decide who should be elected to public office change on the day you turn 18. But what other objective criteria can be used? Should the EBU defer to your judgement, Roland? If you were involved in selecting the commentator who caused the issue that prompted the rule change, they obviously no longer consider you qualified to decide which U25's are mature enough. And rather than replace you with another judge, they've simply taken the easy route of barring all U25's.

[Walddk]

But what other objective criteria can be used?  Should the EBU defer to your judgement, Roland?

If they had asked me (why should they?), I would have said:

 

This is a single incident involving a single commentator, so I suggest that you ask the person in question not to do it again and that he should consider this an official warning. Personally, I have no qualms with inviting that person again. However, BBO does not want to get involved in disputes between the EBU and their members.

 

I think this would have been a sensible way to go about it.

 

Roland

[mrdct]

The EBU committee (with a great deal of justification) takes the view that U25 players do not yet have this judgement and that commenting on fellow squad members can only lead to disharmony".

This would be completely illegal in Australia under Equal Opportunity legislation.

 

Is discrimination on the basis of age not dealt with by British or European laws?

 

The EBU position on this matter offensive to humanity.

[Walddk]

Is discrimination on the basis of age not dealt with by British or European laws?

Even if there was, I am quite confident that neither the British authorities nor the European Commission could be bothered. I don't think they want to interfere with what the EBU tells their U25 squad members.

 

Roland

[cherdano]

The EBU committee (with a great deal of justification) takes the view that U25 players do not yet have this judgement and that commenting on fellow squad members can only lead to disharmony".

This would be completely illegal in Australia under Equal Opportunity legislation.

 

Is discrimination on the basis of age not dealt with by British or European laws?

 

The EBU position on this matter offensive to humanity.

Oh come on, please calm down this thread a bit, and keep humanity, free speech and any other ideology out. (In fact I don't see why non-English or non-juniors need be involved in this discussion at all.)

[Walddk]

(In fact I don't see why non-English or non-juniors need be involved in this discussion at all.)

Some of us are tolerant people, so we will grant you the right to express your view on topics that are not restricted or directly related to Germany. Then perhaps we could expect that you grant us the same permission?

 

This case is intereting beyond the English borders, because it could well happen in other places too. This is a concern, at least for me, and I reserve the right to comment on this and other matters if I find it appropriate.

 

Roland

[mrdct]

Oh come on, please calm down this thread a bit, and keep humanity, free speech and any other ideology out. (In fact I don't see why non-English or non-juniors need be involved in this discussion at all.)

Differences of treatment between different individuals or groups on the grounds of age are invariably based on generalised assumptions and stereotypes. When individuals are subject to discrimination as a result of such stereotypes, their fundamental right to respect for their human dignity is violated, as they are denied equality of treatment and respect.

 

It is incumbant upon all humans to stand-up against prejudice, intolerance, racism, sexism, ageism, genocide and idiotic EBU directives.

 

Oh, the humanity!

[cherdano]

(In fact I don't see why non-English or non-juniors need be involved in this discussion at all.)

Some of us are tolerant people, so we will grant you the right to express your view on topics that are not restricted or directly related to Germany. Then perhaps we could expect that you grant us the same permission?

 

This case is intereting beyond the English borders, because it could well happen in other places too. This is a concern, at least for me, and I reserve the right to comment on this and other matters if I find it appropriate.

 

Roland

That criticism wasn't directed at you, since you are obviously directly involved with this. IMO, for most discussions by comments from people not involved at all with the matter are not particularly helpful.

[Walddk]

Obviously, you can't expect the English squad members to voice their opinions in a public forum. They are in a terrible dilemma because on one hand they strongly disagree (I have inside information), on the other hand they don't want to be omitted from the squad.

 

Since most of us will never make it to the English U-25 squad anyway, we have decided to stand up for them. We want the EBU to know that this decision is, at best, strange and ill-judged.

 

I am wearing my soap box cap; this is not necessarily the official view of BBO.

 

Roland

[geller]

IMO, for most discussions by comments from people not involved at all with the matter are not particularly helpful.

This topic is obviously of some interest to players from all over the world. If you post it on the BBO Forum you are implicitly soliciting comments of people not directly involved. So what's the problem?

[barmar]

Is discrimination on the basis of age not dealt with by British or European laws?

Even if there was, I am quite confident that neither the British authorities nor the European Commission could be bothered. I don't think they want to interfere with what the EBU tells their U25 squad members.

 

Roland

Are BBO commentators even paid? If not, I doubt that equal opportunity laws would apply, as I assume they apply to employment opportunities, not leisure activities conducted by a private organization. And if they did apply, wouldn't they also prohibit tournaments that are similarly restricted by age (in which case this whole issue would be moot, since the tourneys they can't comment on would be illegal)?

[mrdct]

Discrimination laws general reach a lot further than employment into areas such as access to education, welfare, childcare, housing and leisure activities (such as the club or bar that won't let me in because I'm black).

 

I can't speak for the UK or Europe, but in Australia there is an exemption for competitive sporting activities:

 

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ACT 1995 - SECT 66

Exception-competitive sporting activities

 

66. Exception-competitive sporting activities

 

(1) A person may exclude people of one sex or with a gender identity from participating in a competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina or physique of competitors is relevant.

 

(2) A person may restrict participation in a competitive sporting activity-

 

(a) to people who can effectively compete;

 

(:P to people of a specified age or age group;

 

© to people with a general or particular impairment.

 

(3) Sub-section (1) does not apply to a sporting activity for children under

the age of 12 years.

 

It would be interesting if someone sought to challenge whether or not "strength, stamina or physique" is relevant in bridge which would could potentially render women's bridge events illegal in Australia.

[mike777]

In the ACBL there is a serious motion pending to eliminate female only events. Women only events are rapidily declining in attendence.

[the saint]

OK. My two-pence worth.

 

As someone who feels better qualified than most to talk on this matter (an-ex English Junior who still works with the squads and the players involved), I actually think that the EBU selection committee has taken a simple practical view on this matter irrespectove of whether it flaunts the Geneva convention, the Magna Carta or the Law of Total Tricks.

 

I cannot speak for every junior squad around the world although I'm certain that most will be the same, but they are intensely competitive places. On the most part, the juniors all get along (not always, but its not a perfect world). The fact is that a junior has a very limited shelf life, and each of them believes that they should be playing in every event within their limited timespans because they are the best their country has to offer. This is right, and I wouldn't want to select a junior that thought they were second-best to anyone. This competitive edge manifests itself in many ways - the most significant for BBO commentary issues being point scoring i.e. the continual need to prove that you are better than our peers. Quite simply this is because you want to be selected ahead of everyone else.

 

BBO commentary does quite rightly have an unwritten code of conduct, but this 'edge' has been known to come through. This, as we have seen, causes friction. Firction in a squad and amongst teammates is unhealthy and this must be one of the driving reasons behind the EBUs blanket ban on U20s and U25s commentating on each other. I can't see that that is so wrong.

 

I'm not saying that Open, Women's or Senior's bridge is less competitive - far from it, but the 'shelf-life' is longer and the participants are generally more mature.

 

The EBU and its committees have done many completely absurd and ridiculous things. I don't think this is one of them.

[roghog]

Since this is not stamped "classified" or "confidential", you can get all of it (written by Paul Bowyer) in full:

 

Letter 1:

"The EBU selection committee met last week and, amongst other issues, discussed U25s (and U20s) commentating on BBO. The committee believes that it is inappropriate for any U25 or U20 player to commentate (via the internet on BBO) on any event involving U25 or U20 players.

 

In short, no-one in either junior squad is allowed to make comments on-line about matches involving fellow squad members.

 

Failure to comply with this regulation will lead to indefinite suspension from the squad".

Vivid contrast, eh? The Saint's gentle reasoning versus the Committee's brusque

diktat...