OK, I stopped being lazy and went back to page 1 and looked at the decision. I hate reading stuff like that.
Here's what I see, Chico, correct if necessary.
1. The 50% rule I always thought of as an inter-state thing. Living on the border....I've heard of this but thought it dealt with residency. As in, 50% of your team has to be from SC.
Wrong....50% of your team has to come from the District your Club is assigned to.
Wouldn't effect Bridge unless they start recruiting lots of players out of the middle 3rd of the state or from out of state.
Same with CESA....so long as they stick to a majority of players in their district, no impact.
2. No Partnership rule doesn't impact Bridge, because as they said....Bridge is a distinct CLub. For CESA or someone else to do this....they too would need to create a 3rd party organization that all participants feed into.
My opinion: I don't see why any of this needs to be amended. Looks fine to me. If a player from Fort Mill or Rock Hill or Columbia want to play with CESA...nothing is stopping them. In fact, this past year...a bunch of kids did just that, within the bounds of SCYSA rules. No individual or parental rights are being limited.
The problem becomes when over 50% of the roster comes from outside their district.
Building "bridges" (sorry) between districts creates teams that would look suspisciously like ODP teams, wouldn't it?
