Mobile Phones Issues in FIDE Events

[Paul Cooksey]

1. I think Holloid plastics should be contacted about mobile phone boxes
2. I suspect Martyn may be raising this as a pretext to sneak in his sandwiches

I realise I might be reopening old and uncontstructive topics, but if Carl moderates my post I wil l claim it is a breach of my human rights and will ask the ECF to take him to CAS

( , do feel free to moderate me Carl; I realise I should be above this sort of thing )

[David White]

A couple of years ago, I was plaing in the same tournament and we had just started the game when my phone rang. I didn't answer the call but later found out that it was BT trying to sort out a problem I had with the phone! My opponent was quite happy to continue the game until the controller turned up to say that whilst we could continue the game it would count as a default anyway. I have not played in this tournament since.

It seems therefore that your opponent being happy to play on is not good enough but being in fear of their life is.

[Jonathan Bryant]

One for the arbiters:-

Arbiter says "Please start White's clock".
Before the clocks are started, somebody's phone makes a sound.

Is this a default?

[Richard Bates]

other games may have started and a phone going off could distract them, hence a default needed.

In most FIDE events the playing conditions allow photographers to buzz around taking close up photos and using flash photography for a period up to five minutes into the game. So opinion that the very early stages of a game are so critical as to necessitate draconian penalties for causing a distraction at that stage is arguably somewhat mixed...

[Gareth Harley-Yeo]

Michael I sympathise with you. It seems the forumites have decided to hijack this thread with pointless stories of beeping mobiles.

You make a good point that these arbiter decisions need to be stamped out. The rules are the rules and should be followed to the letter. If my daughter was the female in question who's life was threatened I'm not sure who I'd channel my anger at more - The perpetrator or the so called chief arbiter overseeing the event who didn't want to create a fuss.

[Roger de Coverly]

In most FIDE events the playing conditions allow photographers to buzz around taking close up photos and using flash photography for a period up to five minutes into the game.

Isn't FIDE's zero default obsession at least in part to allow all this photography? The old trick, as used sometimes by RJF, of turning up at the board five or ten minutes late had the merit of avoiding these distractions.

[Mick Norris]

snip

Regarding the initial issue about the mobile phone, I did escalate this to the CEO of the ECF prior to coming to the Forum, but the CEO requires me to provide him with evidence that the appeals process was exhausted. I think this is a somewhat ridiculous requirement, as records of appeals processes are supposed to be maintained by the tournament.

If the organiser doesn't reply to the CEO, it is unlikely the CEO will do anything further.

For the above reasons, I have posted here as the CEO of the ECF does not seem willing to be proactive in improving arbiting standards or stamping out the unwelcome actions of those who violate the rules.

Michael

Given the CEO has had problems with arbiters, as mentioned by him elsewhere on here, you might forgive him for this

Clearly, there is an issue of who you complain to if you have a problem with the arbiter - an interesting point I would like to know, as it happened to me recently

Does the Arbiters Association have a complaints mechanism? And can you be sure of justice if it is one of their (senior) members you are complaining about?

It is also interesting that everyone sees these as issues for the ECF (arbiters, coaching, etc) yet many don't want to give the ECF enough resource to sort them out

[Paul Cooksey]

It is also interesting that everyone sees these as issues for the ECF (arbiters, coaching, etc) yet many don't want to give the ECF enough resource to sort them out

Almost everyone might be a little more accurate . It seems to me that arbiters are independent of the ECF, but perhaps they will comment on how they deal with complaints, either unofficially here or through their association.

(I might see this the other way to Mick. If the ECF has no control of these bodies, the amount of resource the ECF has is irrelevant to the jobs being done well)

[Alex McFarlane]

The CAA is effectively the Arbiters' trade union.

If someone wants to query an arbiter's behavior in Scotland then the correct procedure is to go through the Chess Scotland Standards Committee. For obvious reasons this body is independent of the Board. Without trying to deviate too much, such a system in England would have been very useful un the last year and not just with my own situation but the actions of the Board re taking FIDE to court could have been raised.

At its last AGM the CAA suggested that the ECF should have something similar in place. Andrew Farthing has indicated that he may have a policy document available shortly.

The CAA obviously is unable to take any action against Arbiters who are not members.

The ECF has investigated complaints in the past.

[Roger de Coverly]

Without trying to deviate too much, such a system in England would have been very useful un the last year and not just with my own situation but the actions of the Board re taking FIDE to court could have been raised.

I'd probably agree with you there.

I would fear that such a body would just be used to pursue some of the trivial feuds to which British chess sometimes seems to be vulnerable. As we know, Lancashire v Greater Manchester is 37 years (?) and counting. Surrey seem to have a handful of unresolved issues as well.

[David Sedgwick]

The CAA obviously is unable to take any action against Arbiters who are not members.

The ECF has investigated complaints in the past.

I've always advised anyone who has a complaint about my conduct as an ECF (Senior) Arbiter to refer the matter to the ECF Chief Arbiter at first instance.

Under the present arrangements, the power to remove an ECF Arbiter title rests with the Director of Home Chess, with the right of appeal to the Board. As Alex says, this arrangement is under review, with the possibility of establishing a separate Ethics Committee (or similar).

However, I should point out that, although the "senior arbiter" named by Michael J R White is certainly a respected organiser, he is not actually an ECF Arbiter (let alone a Senior Arbiter). It's not clear to me what action the ECF could actually take.

I would fear that such a body would just be used to pursue some of the trivial feuds to which British chess sometimes seems to be vulnerable. As we know, Lancashire v Greater Manchester is 37 years (?) and counting. Surrey seem to have a handful of unresolved issues as well.

I share those concerns. This proved to be a major problem when we had a similar body in Surrey. Moreover, we had great difficulty in finding enough suitable people to serve on the panel in some cases - almost everyone already had some involvement with the issue in question.

I find it hard to accept that the court case against FIDE should fall within the remit of such a body. This is surely a matter about which Council should hold the Board to account as it sees fit.

[Roger de Coverly]

However, I should point out that, although the "senior arbiter" named by Michael J R White is certainly a respected organiser, he is not actually an ECF Arbiter (let alone a Senior Arbiter). It's not clear to me what action the ECF could actually take.

That rather turns the issue on its head. The CAA could raise a problem with the ECF about the circumstances in which an organiser was able to overturn an arbiter's decision. The Congress is, presumably, a member of the ECF, as is the CAA.

[David Sedgwick]

However, I should point out that, although the "senior arbiter" named by Michael J R White is certainly a respected organiser, he is not actually an ECF Arbiter (let alone a Senior Arbiter). It's not clear to me what action the ECF could actually take.

That rather turns the issue on its head. The CAA could raise a problem with the ECF about the circumstances in which an organiser was able to overturn an arbiter's decision. The Congress is, presumably, a member of the ECF, as is the CAA.

If a CAA member complained to the CAA that (s)he had been improperly overruled, then indeed the CAA could raise the matter with the ECF. That's not the situation here.

We have one account of the incident, from a player not directly involved, who is complaining about an arbiting decision made by a person who is not an ECF Arbiter.

It's worth mentioning that the result of the game in question was ultimately not affected. According to the FIDE rating report, the alleged offender lost anyway.

The ECF appear to have decided that no further action is open to them, or warranted. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

[E Michael White]

It's worth mentioning that the result of the game in question was ultimately not affected. According to the FIDE rating report, the alleged offender lost anyway.

Do you not see that:-

• the actual result does not make bad arbiting any better
• players other than an opponent can be affected by an active mobile phone
• in non-ECF/CS etc arbiter run events parents have no guarantee that those persons are CRB cleared. There were many young players taking part.
• incidents like these would likely reduce if arbiters stuck to the rules

[Alex Holowczak]

the actual result does not make bad arbiting good

I don't believe David said that it did.

players other than an opponent can be affected by an active mobile phone

I don't believe David said they weren't.

in non-ECF/CS etc arbiter run events parents have no guarantee that those persons are CRB cleared. There were many young players taking part.

The event was not organised by the ECF. If an untitled arbiter or organiser of a non-ECF event does not have a CRB clearance, what do you suggest the ECF does about this issue?

I would also argue that the arbiter isn't running the event - the organiser is. The arbiter would have been CRB cleared. You're right that we don't know about the organiser's CRB status. I would have thought most parents who were concerned about this would either not enter the tournament, or ask in advance.

incidents like these would likely reduce if arbiters stuck to the rules

The arbiter, according to the given account, did. If this version of events is true, he was overruled by an organiser acting as an arbiter, who is neither a qualified ECF Arbiter nor an ECF Senior Arbiter. The ECF has given no endorsement as to his skills as an arbiter. So what can the ECF do? They can't detitle him, because he doesn't have the title anyway.

It's likely, I suppose, that the organiser was acting as an arbiter, presumably due to a shortage of volunteers. The blurring of the distinction between organiser and arbiter is a trait of English chess, mostly borne out of either a shortage of volunteers, or the fear that putting the entry fee up by £2 to fund the extra arbiter would lead to mass complaints/exodus from the players.