ALSA Conference (Melbourne) 2012

1. ALSA Conference (Melbourne) 2012 9 – 16th July COMPETITIONS

2. Release of problems • All problems (ex WE and PP) are traditionally released three weeks prior to the start of Conference. • In 2011, Moot and IHL were released four weeks prior. • Proposal: That the moot problems revert to being released 3 weeks prior to the start of competition in line with all other competitions.

3. Memorandum Submissions Due • Moot submissions have traditionally been due a few hours prior to the round commencing. • This practice causes huge issues for judges as they are not able to receive and read the memos in advance. • May be a factor leading to the disorganisation of competitions. • Proposal: That all preliminary memos are due at 7pm on the night of opening gala.

4. Number of Rounds • 2010: 3 rounds, QF, SF, GF • 2011: 4 rounds, QF, SF, GF • How was the 4 rounds taken by the teams? • Do we want 4 or 3 preliminary rounds? • Do we want to add an Octo Final into the mix? • If yes, how many teams required to trigger it?

5. Forfeiture • Previously: forfeiture prevents breaking but doesn’t affect any other prelim rounds. • Proposal: That forfeiture is instant dismissal from all future rounds. • Reasons: Forfeiture is a major headache for the competitions team and should be strongly discouraged. • We would like to provide a document that may be signed by all competitors saying that forfeiture without a valid cause (such as sever illness – not alcohol induced) will result allow the LSS to recover registration cost from the team.

6. Grand Finals • Issue: Increasingly two international teams are making the Grand Final resulting in no clear top Australian team. • This is potentially problematic if we are looking for a ranking of Australian teams to send internationally. • Proposal: That a playoff is held between the third and fourth teams to determine the top Australian team where none a present in the Grand Final. • Query whether we want this regardless so we have a clear ranking of our top 4 teams?

7. Penalties • History: Penalties under the current rules are applied but only the team receiving the penalty is informed. • Issue: This is fine if the Conference team make no mistakes but problematic if they do as the opposing team is unable to appeal. • Proposal: That all penalty points awarded are publicly available.

8. Number of problems to be used in the Moot • Previous years: New problem for every round. • Issue: means that the finals used problems that competitors have had very little time to prepare on. Reduced standards in the grand final. • Proposal: That either 2 or 4 problems are used in the preliminary rounds and that these problems are then reused for the finals.

9. Number of problems to be used in the IHL Moot • Previous years: Single problem used for the entire competition. • Issue: Query whether this is challenging enough for the competitors. • Proposal: That the number of problems adopted for the moot is mirrored in the IHL competition.

10. COMPETITIONS SUBCOMMITTEE • Focus: The competitions subcommittee for the immediate future will be solely concerned with fixing the rules (again…). • The structure for competitions this year will have three tiers. • At the top will be the competitions subcommittee. Anyone is welcome to join this subcommittee and they will be responsible for the rules rewrite. These students will also form the various stages of appeal at Conference. • Secondly, a database will be collected of all competitions officers or VPs from all universities. Once the rules are written they will be emailed and asked for submissions and comments. • Finally, rules will be sent to council for comments and concerns. • As the rules are aimed to be finished prior to the start of Semester 1, the executive will then exercise their authority under 4.6

11. RULES - History • History: In 2010 a thorough rewrite of the rules was sought as they were very outdated. It was hoped that this would be a one off process and not repeated for many years. • At the same time, appeals were changed so you could only appeal on a breach of the rules (previously appeals were a farce where anything could be appealed – and was). • In 2011 after the rules had been tested in 2010, a competitions subcommittee and working party was formed to again edit and refine them. • While substantial improvements were made, Conference highlighted some serious flaws.

12. RULES - Current • The intention this year is to once again edit the rules (third time lucky?). • In particular, and in direct response to Sydney, we will seek to articulate a penalty for every single rule. This should help to alleviate many of the problems the review board faced in July. • Outside of this it is not envisaged any substantial changes (other than those decided today) will occur. • As mentioned previously, it is intended the new rules will be ready for distribution prior to the start of Semester 1.

13. APPEALS • 2 stages of appeal • Appeals Coordinators • Independent • Will have power to investigate and make a determination on the appeal. • Review Board • Includes at least 1 exec member • Decision is final and binding. A decision in the review board can effect all decisions for that round and will determine the outcome for future rounds. • NO APPEALS FROM THIS BOARD