Which is that Adam?Adam Raoof wrote:Not exactly - I represent a county that doesn't actually exist!MartinCarpenter wrote:In the name surely
Motions
-
- Posts: 1397
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
- Location: Oldham
Re: Motions
-
- Posts: 2720
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:16 pm
- Location: NW4 4UY
Re: Motions
Middlesex. My point is that people could still turn up on a Saturday and play chess for Surrey against Middlesex or Greater Manchester, without any eligibility rules. It wouldn't make anyone more or less likely to be selected for a team. It might even have a positive effect.Alan Walton wrote:Which is that Adam?Adam Raoof wrote:Not exactly - I represent a county that doesn't actually exist!MartinCarpenter wrote:In the name surely
Adam Raoof IA, IO
Chess England Events - https://chessengland.com/
The Chess Circuit - https://chesscircuit.substack.com/
Don’t stop playing chess!
Chess England Events - https://chessengland.com/
The Chess Circuit - https://chesscircuit.substack.com/
Don’t stop playing chess!
-
- Posts: 2075
- Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
- Location: Harrogate
Re: Motions
To suggest that there was an `advance approval` is a bit of a leap. A possible eligibility query was raised which led to the Yorkshire Open captain asking Alex Holowczak a question. Those involved can speak for themselves, should they wish.Roger de Coverly wrote:[
It's been implied that the selection of these players had been approved in advance by those in charge of the Counties Championship, so no formal protest was raised.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own
-
- Posts: 1266
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:23 pm
Re: Motions
An excellent question.Adam Raoof wrote:Just for me, can someone point to a statement that defines the actual purpose of the counties championships?Alan Walton wrote:you might as well do away with any rules and make everybody eligible for whoever they want to play for, but this defeats the purpose of the County Champs
Many counties, mostly those who 30 years ago were classified as 'minor counties', have decided it doesn't serve a useful purpose and have stopped entering teams. How many counties actually entered teams this year?
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.
-
- Posts: 1235
- Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
- Location: Hertfordshire
Re: Motions
The fact that Yorkshire didn't submit a formal complaint within the time limit specified by the rules would suggest they didn't believe they had sufficient grounds to object to their opponent's team selection.Andrew Zigmond wrote:To suggest that there was an `advance approval` is a bit of a leap. A possible eligibility query was raised which led to the Yorkshire Open captain asking Alex Holowczak a question. Those involved can speak for themselves, should they wish.Roger de Coverly wrote:[
It's been implied that the selection of these players had been approved in advance by those in charge of the Counties Championship, so no formal protest was raised.
If you believe the rules have been infringed you have to raise an objection at the time to the appropriate authority.
-
- Posts: 1397
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
- Location: Oldham
Re: Motions
When you are told they are abiding by the rules, it is very difficult to appeal; but when evidence comes later saying said rules may have been misinterpreted then what to you do, a bit late to appeal over a month laterMichael Flatt wrote:The fact that Yorkshire didn't submit a formal complaint within the time limit specified by the rules would suggest they didn't believe they had sufficient grounds to object to their opponent's team selection.Andrew Zigmond wrote:To suggest that there was an `advance approval` is a bit of a leap. A possible eligibility query was raised which led to the Yorkshire Open captain asking Alex Holowczak a question. Those involved can speak for themselves, should they wish.Roger de Coverly wrote:[
It's been implied that the selection of these players had been approved in advance by those in charge of the Counties Championship, so no formal protest was raised.
If you believe the rules have been infringed you have to raise an objection at the time to the appropriate authority.
-
- Posts: 1235
- Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
- Location: Hertfordshire
Re: Motions
Would playing for Marple in the East Lancashire Summer League be sufficient to claim eligibility as a Lancashire player?
-
- Posts: 2069
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
- Location: Morecambe, Europe
Re: Motions
I hope not. You playing for Lancashire would put my place in the team at risk!
-
- Posts: 1235
- Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
- Location: Hertfordshire
Re: Motions
Don't worry. I am not currently planning to move - just looking at the possibilities.Michael Farthing wrote:I hope not. You playing for Lancashire would put my place in the team at risk!
-
- Posts: 1838
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am
Re: Motions
The eligibility criteria ought to be simplified and allow for the possibility of a transfer during a season.
Remove any dual eligibility ambiguities.
Remove any dual eligibility ambiguities.
-
- Posts: 2069
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
- Location: Morecambe, Europe
Re: Motions
Why stop there? Why not have transfers in the middle of a game?
-
- Posts: 1397
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
- Location: Oldham
Re: Motions
I gather no, they Club has to be affiliated; Heywoodfor example is not affiliated to the MCF but competes in the Manchester leagueMichael Flatt wrote:Would playing for Marple in the East Lancashire Summer League be sufficient to claim eligibility as a Lancashire player?
-
- Posts: 3053
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am
Re: Motions
Marple is also not even geographically in historic Lancashire They do play for 3C's which is of course but very far from friendly to Lancashire county chess!
-
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
- Location: Croydon
Re: Motions
Last season Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Middlesex and Surrey all played in the U120 Division of the SCCU Counties Championships. Sussex did not.Michael Flatt wrote:Unless Greater Manchester actually field an Open team in the competition, I don't see any justification for blocking players turning out for another team with which they claim affiliation.
If a number of Sussex U120 players had "claimed affiliation" to Surrey and played for them, do you not feel that any or all of Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent and Middlesex might have been entitled to object?
-
- Posts: 1235
- Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
- Location: Hertfordshire
Re: Motions
Well, if the eligibility of players to play for teams has become a significant concern, which it has, then some representation needs to be made to the organisers regarding the best method to validate a player's eligibility. It should apply equally to all teams in the competition.
If such a request doesn't achieve a satisfactory response then the next step would be to raise the concern with Council.
If such a request doesn't achieve a satisfactory response then the next step would be to raise the concern with Council.