Semi-Final Series Protest vs Peterborough - Explained

The 2022 semi-final series between the Brooklin Lacrosse Club (BLC) and the Peterborough Lakers had as much action off the floor as it did on. There were two protests launched over rule violations, one by each team. The first was an argument by Peterborough that a BLC assistant coach was on the bench for game two after he was given a game misconduct for an event that occurred at the end of the first game.  The Lakers were successful and instead of the series being tied 1-1, Peterborough was awarded the victory and owned a 2-0 lead in the best of seven semi-final series. 

The second issue was with respect to the Lakers use of two players and BLC's effort to question the legitimacy of these two late additions to the Lakers line-up as outlined below. There was social media activity related to this issue with fans asking questions; for the purpose of clarity regarding the Injured Reserve player eligibility appeal that the BLC submitted against Peterborough on August 9, 2022, we wish to explain to our fans and supporters the rationale behind the appeal and the outcome.

  1. As a member of the MSL and OLA it is our duty to uphold the bylaws and regulations of our governing bodies. Given that obligation, we submitted our appeal based on our current MSL Policy Paper, Section 9A Part H - “Any player not returning prior to July 1 shall remain on the (IR) list until January 15 when lists are put forward for the following season.”, and OLA Constitution regulation R6.14a- “July 2nd shall be the final date for rostering or releasing players, except those players previously released from any team on or before July 2nd may be rostered in the same category (Junior A to Junior A, Junior B to Junior B, Junior C to Junior C), on of before July 15th, provided the team has an available roster spot. No further releases shall be allowed after July 2nd, until January 15th.”. In the case of the Peterborough players, Matt Vinc and Joe Resetarits were removed from the Peterborough injured reserve list on July 17, 2022 and July 29, 2022, respectively. Therefore, the two Peterborough players were released from their IR list after the dates permitted by both the MSL and OLA regulations, and that is why the BLC submitted the appeal.
  2. The appeal was heard on August 11th and the OLA decision in favour of Peterborough was provided on August 12th. The OLA chose to rule in favour of “accepted practices from previous seasons”, and other arguments that did not address MSL 9A(H) or OLA R6.14a. On August 13, the BLC submitted a request for second level of appeal based on the OLA decision to allow “accepted practices from previous seasons” to supersede current MSL and OLA policies. Despite OLA Constitution OR11.3(c) “The President or Designate, in consultation with the OLA Hearings Case Manager and/or OLA staff, shall make a determination if the appeal request has the merits to proceed to a hearing. The determination shall be issued in writing and is non-appealable.”, and OR11.3d “In making the determination, the President or Designate shall consider the following factors as cause to grant an appeal; i) Making a decision for which the Respondent did not have the authority or jurisdiction as set out in the applicable governing documents. ii) New facts that were not available when the decision was made. iii) Failing to consider the relevant Bylaws, Rules and Regulations, or approved policies of the Ontario Lacrosse Association.’, the OLA dismissed the BLC request for a second level of appeal. And as noted OR11.3(c) the determination to not allow the second level of appeal is non-appealable. Regardless, the BLC believed when we submitted our initial appeal that we have a duty to uphold the bylaws and regulations of our governing bodies, and we continue to believe that today.

BLC is aware that nothing will come from this message as we were denied appeals on both counts, we felt it was important to set the record straight and provide our fans and supporters a chance to hear directly from us on this issue.