On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > A related (but different) case was the one where I was listed as an officer > in the > IADoP's (as it then was, IIRC) report as holding an office, but not in the > Registrar's > report. Since officeholding is restricted to players, it was held that the > IADoP > report ratifying made me a player in addition to the officeholder.
Just FYI, CFJ 3455 overruled this for cases where there's no evidence of consent for being a player (dunno if that was the situation with yours).
