We seem to be talking at cross purposes here. The French approach seems very sensible and is similar to that of the ICF.David Sedgwick wrote:The second expression is not the most appropriate to quote in this context. Many Continental Federations, including France just across the Channel, have stringent national requirements which arbiters have to satisfy before they can even commence the process of acquiring the FA title. Nowadays that's not the case in England.Brian Towers wrote:Two expressions come to mind. One about the usefulness in having a dog and barking oneself and the other that famous old Times headline: "Heavy Fog In Channel. Continent Cut Off". Why am I surprised that the "Little Englander" spirit lives on into the 21st century?
No, what I don't understand is why the duplication by the ECF?
There is a FIDE arbiter's exam and an ECF arbiter's exam.
There are 4 levels of ECF arbiter and 3 levels of FIDE arbiter with the lowest level FIDE arbiter corresponding to the second lowest ECF arbiter.
Why? What is the point of the two higher ECF levels? What is the point of two exams which presumably both cover the essentials? Why the duplication, confusion and wasted effort?
Surely it would make more sense to just have the one exam and only have levels of ECF arbiter up to the lowest FIDE level and then just use the FIDE ones?
Perhaps it is just an historic artefact which hasn't been tidied up yet. If it were, or at least the anomalous situation acknowledged and the intention expressed to rationalize the situation, then it would pre-empt the badgering from people like Michael Flatt (and perhaps me )