array(2) {
[0]=>
string(815) "
select r.*,
rc.info,
t.title as threadtitle,
u.username as username,
u.anonymous as useranonymous,
`f`.`value` AS `flairvalue`,
`ft`.`name` AS `flairname`,
`ft`.`colour` AS `flaircolour`,
`ft`.`icon` AS `flairicon`
from reply as r
join thread as t on t.id = r.threadid
join replycontent as rc on rc.replyid = r.id
join user as u on u.id = r.userid
left join `flair` `f` on `f`.`userid` = `u`.`id` and `f`.`categoryid` = `t`.`categoryid`
left join `flairoption` `ft` on `ft`.`id` = `f`.`flairoptionid`
where r.businessid = :businessId
and r.threadid = :threadId
group by r.id
order by r.utcdated desc
limit 0,50
"
[1]=>
array(2) {
["businessId"]=>
int(1)
["threadId"]=>
int(39727)
}
}
Wondering what people think about the current interpretation on the by-laws where a player can play the whole season yet not be eligible for finals in any division.
For example a player plays most of the season in Div 4 then is brought up to Div 3 for the last few games of the season to cover injuries. The first part of the by-law states that they are ineligible for Div 3 as they have not played 40% of the Div 3 games. The last part states that they are ineligible for finals in all but Div 3 as they played in that Div in the last 3 rounds. My logic says that they should be eligible for Div 3 under these rules, but BSA's logic is obviously different to mine.
Does this seem like fair treatment for someone who has forked out $100's of dollars to BSA during the season and the team that works so hard to get to finals?