Re: 2013 Final Stage
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 4:45 pm
And now Kent have lostGraham Borrowdale wrote:In the Open, Kent-Middlesex looks as if it was a good match
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/county-c ... -20122013/
The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
https://www.ecforum.org.uk/
And now Kent have lostGraham Borrowdale wrote:In the Open, Kent-Middlesex looks as if it was a good match
"Kent board 12 ineligible: Not an ECF member when the game was played. Game declared won for his opponent, and Kent penalised 1 gamepoint."Mick Norris wrote:And now Kent have lostGraham Borrowdale wrote:In the Open, Kent-Middlesex looks as if it was a good match
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/county-c ... -20122013/
I wouldn't blame Kent if they decided to boycott the competition in future years. The ECF has got its pound of flesh in membership money, why does it need to wreck the competition for good measure?Christopher Kreuzer wrote: "Kent board 12 ineligible: Not an ECF member when the game was played. Game declared won for his opponent, and Kent penalised 1 gamepoint."
Well, I'm not going to comment further until it is clear what will happen. And it might be be best for others to wait likewise.Roger de Coverly wrote:I wouldn't blame Kent if they decided to boycott the competition in future years. The ECF has got its pound of flesh in membership money, why does it need to wreck the competition for good measure?Christopher Kreuzer wrote: "Kent board 12 ineligible: Not an ECF member when the game was played. Game declared won for his opponent, and Kent penalised 1 gamepoint."
Checking the exact time to the hour that someone became a member is taking compliance with rules to a level almost beyond belief.
Well it's not exactly a legal issue, is it Chris. It does become clear that captains will need to check that all of their players are ECF registered - if they don't then this is what's going to happen. But you have got to feel sorry for Kent and for the player concerned who is been playing county chess for donkeys yearsChristopher Kreuzer wrote:Well, I'm not going to comment further until it is clear what will happen. And it might be be best for others to wait likewise.Roger de Coverly wrote:I wouldn't blame Kent if they decided to boycott the competition in future years. The ECF has got its pound of flesh in membership money, why does it need to wreck the competition for good measure?Christopher Kreuzer wrote: "Kent board 12 ineligible: Not an ECF member when the game was played. Game declared won for his opponent, and Kent penalised 1 gamepoint."
Checking the exact time to the hour that someone became a member is taking compliance with rules to a level almost beyond belief.
Previously a Gold member as well, expiring 2nd May 2013 according to older versions of the membership list.John Moore wrote: But you have got to feel sorry for Kent and for the player concerned who is been playing county chess for donkeys years
Source: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... edraft.docProposed redraft of the County Championship rules as presented in advance of the April 2012 Finance Council Meeting wrote:A4. In the Final Stage each team shall pay an entry fee, and all players must be ECF members at bronze level or above.
Source: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/county-c ... -20122013/County Championships Rules – 2012 / 2013 wrote:A4. In the Final Stage all players must be ECF members at bronze level or above. Non-members shall be deemed to be ineligible, and treated in accordance with C3.3.
Source: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... inutes.pdf (The minutes were approved at the ECF's 2012 AGM in October without change to what was recorded for item 19.)April 2012 Finance Council Meeting Draft Minutes wrote: 19. County Championship Rules
The following changes were noted and agreed:
i. C4.1 - loss of match by default should be changed to one penalty point.
ii. D2.2 - Unions' third nominations should be made more formal.
iii. D3.1 - Amendment to say "All rounds should be held in the same grading season".
iv. D5.1 - Should say "report match by email within 48 hours."
v. E2.3 - Should say "list players with 10 point grading band."
vi. E4.2 - Should say "the captain winning the toss gets choice of colours".
The Board seem to be playing "pass the parcel" and blaming result changing interpretations on Council.Angus French wrote: Can anyone confirm when the current rule A4 - including the reference to the clause about penalties - was approved and by whom?
This rather suggests that it was the Board who inserted the clause applying result penalties for non-members. Discussion on the rules at the 2012 meeting was brief according to meeting reports, so the whole principle of whether you default non-members was presumably not discussed with Council.The Board is minded to revise the rules with effect from 2012-13. It is not envisaged that Council will be asked to approve the new version in detail. However, Council’s comments are sought on the draft version presented in these papers. The wishes of Council on specific points will carry weight which the Board would ignore at its peril.
The knowledgeable would realise this immediately - if it worked in the same way as the Berks and London Leagues, the match cards would be littered with players called AN Other entered by one match captain and confirmed as correct by the other one.John Upham wrote:Fortunately it does not.Roger de Coverly wrote:
if it works the same way as the Berks, London League
Anyway, some aspects of the application do appear somewhat familiar!
I concur.Richard Bates wrote:... the rules, if they have to exist with draconian (match result affecting) penalties, should include a 'discretion' clause to allow the Controller to override for obviously honest mistakes.
Brian does an excellent job of monitoring match cards and dealing with unregistered players: he is very proactive. Most issues are turned round in 48 hours at worst.Ian Thompson wrote:The knowledgeable would realise this immediately - if it worked in the same way as the Berks and London Leagues, the match cards would be littered with players called AN Other entered by one match captain and confirmed as correct by the other one.John Upham wrote:Fortunately it does not.Roger de Coverly wrote:
if it works the same way as the Berks, London League
Anyway, some aspects of the application do appear somewhat familiar!
My emboldeningSCCU website wrote:A penalty has been imposed in the Open match Kent - Middx, reversing the result, and we hear an appeal is on the cards.
Ah, is it? And this time, I am eligible to be one of the Three Wise Men. How utterly splendid.David Sedgwick wrote:My emboldeningSCCU website wrote:A penalty has been imposed in the Open match Kent - Middx, reversing the result, and we hear an appeal is on the cards.
As the ECF Directors wrote the rule, or at least agreed to it, should any ECF directors be involved?IM Jack Rudd wrote: Ah, is it? And this time, I am eligible to be one of the Three Wise Men. How utterly splendid.