Finals day 2 July

[Sean Hewitt]

What they don't tell you is that.....
Surrey Lancs
Home director overrules arbiter and denies right of any further appeal .. were Surrey allowed to submit their case? apparently not

Bob - is there evidence to support this rather surprising claim?
My understanding is that the Controller (in consultation with an arbiter) made the original ruling and that Lancs appealed. The appeal would have been heard by a panel of 3 independent folks, would not have included the Home Director, and would have considered evidence and statements from both Surrey and Lancs.
Was that not so?

[Mike Truran]

Yes, it was so. I too would be interested to see Bob's "evidence".

[Michael Flatt]

I presume that everyone is aware of the rules of the competition[1]

D5. Reporting of Results

D5.1. Results must be reported by both teams on the results server not later than 48 hours after the match was played. If a result is not reported or confirmed within the due time, the Controller may impose a fine of £10 on the offending county or counties. If neither team reports the result, the Controller may eliminate both teams.

E4. Responsibilities of the Captains

E4.7. If, during a game, the players discover a problem which they or their captains cannot resolve, an arbiter should be consulted. Where no neutral arbiter is present in the venue, an external arbiter may be approached. The Controller will make available a list of Arbiters who have experience of arbiting at team competitions organised by the ECF.

D1. The Role of the Controller

D1.1. The Final Stage of each section shall be conducted by the Controller. Any decision of the Controller can be appealed against by direct reference to the Director of Home Chess, in writing and made within 48 hours of that decision. Such an appeal shall be accompanied by a deposit of £20 which will be returned if the appeal succeeds. The appeal will be heard by the Appeals Committee, which shall be composed of three members of the Appeals Panel appointed by the Director of Home Chess. The people on the Panel will be published before the start of the Final Stage, and it will have at least five members plus the Chief Arbiter. The Director of Home Chess shall then reply within a further 48 hours with his decision which is final.

The Appeals Panel is composed of David Welch, Ben Edgell, Adrian Elwin, Neil Graham, Chris Majer and David Sedgwick

It appears that in the case of a dispute where no Arbiter is present the two captains should consult an Arbiter from a list supplied by the National Controller. The Controller doesn't appear to be the person who makes the ruling, but accepts the results from the two captains who have had the benefit of consulting an Arbiter to whom they have both agreed.

Both captains have to submit the match result within the specified time limit. There seems no provision for extending the deadline.

There seems no reason why either captain should appeal the Arbiter's ruling unless there is further evidence of which he was not aware.

There simply isn't sufficient information in the Public Domain to understand what the dispute was about. We need to know the basis of Appeal made to the Appeal Panel and the justification of the Appeal Panel in overturning the Arbiter's ruling.

[1] County Championships 2015/16 – rules: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/competit ... onships-2/

[Roger de Coverly]

There simply isn't sufficient information in the Public Domain to understand what the dispute was about.

It's been revealed that the dispute was about the Laws of Chess and that the outcome was a draw.

Is it known whether there was an arbiter deemed present? Presumably not, unless it's their decision on the day being challenged. Were increments being used? If not, then interpretation of Appendix G could have been the issue.

[Andrew Zigmond]

It appears that in the case of a dispute where no Arbiter is present the two captains should consult an Arbiter from a list supplied by the National Controller. The Controller doesn't appear to be the person who makes the ruling, but accepts the results from the two captains who have had the benefit of consulting an Arbiter to whom they have both agreed.

That is correct up to a point. When a dispute arises and a neutral arbiter is not at the venue, best practice is for an arbiter to be telephoned. Of course that isn't a perfect system as it might take a few phone calls to find an arbiter who isn't at another event or simply doing something non chess related. I have looked into the idea of trying to arrange a named `duty arbiter` who will be on call at any time but that has proved impractical for various reasons (matches are played across several dates, some arbiters have county allegiances). That said it shouldn't be beyond the wit of captains to discuss beforehand who might be available should a dispute arise - the format of the competition is hardly new!

The rules also allow teams to request the presence of a neutral arbiter provided the team making the request meets the expenses.

Where a neutral arbiter was not present or not consulted at the time the controller can only make the best decision he can by reviewing the information available and consulting a suitably qualified individual where necessary.

There simply isn't sufficient information in the Public Domain to understand what the dispute was about. We need to know the basis of Appeal made to the Appeal Panel and the justification of the Appeal Panel in overturning the Arbiter's ruling.

As has been stated several times the ECF considers this matter a confidential one as it involves individual players. To use an analogy; a major company may discuss a failure of process openly with its employees so that learnings can be made but a grievance complaint between two employees would be kept private (and rightly so).

To Michael Flatt personally; Given the work you have done for the ECF and other chess bodies (your assistance as an arbiter at last years final was much appreciated). I suspect there would be no objection to you seeing the relevant documentation, either through SCCU or ECF channels.

[Michael Flatt]

It's been revealed that the dispute was about the Laws of Chess and that the outcome was a draw.

The result as reported by Lancashire gives the result on Board 16 as a draw[1].
Are Surrey disputing that is the correct result as ruled by the Arbiter?
Is it that Surrey didn't record the correct match results within the allowed time?

We require a statement from the ECF by the chairman of the Appeal Panel for us to understand what happened.

[1] U180, Surrey vs Lancs: http://www.oxfordfusion.com/oca/GetClub ... 2015&Org=4

Edit: Andrew, thank you for offering to share the ECF documentation with me but I feel I should decline. I would like to remain a neutral observer and being given access to what the ECF regards as confidential information would compromise my position.

I should also disclose that I have just been appointed as the SCCU County Match controller so I might not be viewed as being totally neutral.

[Roger de Coverly]

As has been stated several times the ECF considers this matter a confidential one as it involves individual players.

That's something of a weak argument, given that the overall match result and the identity of the board with the disputed result were both recorded on the ECF's results website.

[Andrew Zigmond]

As has been stated several times the ECF considers this matter a confidential one as it involves individual players.

That's something of a weak argument, given that the overall match result and the identity of the board with the disputed result were both recorded on the ECF's results website.

That is an equally weak argument. The match result was reported on the ECF server. The SCCA website noted the dispute and the board involved.

To use my major company analogy again; gossip in the colleague canteen does not mean confidential papers are published.

[Roger de Coverly]

The result as reported by Lancashire gives the result on Board 16 as a draw.
Are Surrey disputing that is the correct result as ruled by the Arbiter?

Possible sequence of events.

Lancs player makes a draw claim under Appendix G ( unable to win ....)
No arbiter deemed present and players or match captains unable to agree on the validity of the claim
According to Appendix G, play ceases and resolution goes to the Controller, who in consultation with an arbiter, rules against Lancs.
Lancs appeal, so decision goes to Appeals Panel.
Appeals Panel rules "Draw".

It could be revealed that it was an Appendix G issue, even if the actual position on the board wasn't disclosed.

If it wasn't an Appendix G issue, it's difficult to see what else it could have been as all other methods of drawing are, or should be, matters of fact. I suppose if you tried to claim repetition or fifty moves without an up to date scoresheet, that could be contentious. It could perhaps be disputed whether the Surrey player was actually offering or accepting a draw. Either player could have made a draw offer when it was not their move, or without playing a move. Illegal draw offers can be accepted without creating a dispute.

[Roger de Coverly]

To use my major company analogy again; gossip in the colleague canteen does not mean confidential papers are published.

If it was an Appendix G dispute, why should that be confidential?

If it's a more general dispute about the interpretation of one of the Laws of Chess, that equally ought to be public, so that a rewording can be considered.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Aren't you misremembering, Roger? I thought Surrey appealed?

Back here:

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 72#p182917

The original result reported was a draw on board 16. The impression I had was that Surrey were challenging and trying to overturn that (and hence the match result by board count). If it was an Appendix G claim (no confirmation of that either way), then it is more likely to have been a claim for a draw that was upheld by the arbiter and in the subsequent appeal. But then it might not be an Appendix G claim at all.

Andrew Z, are you allowed to say whether the presence of a neutral arbiter at the match would likely have helped?

[Andrew Zigmond]

To use my major company analogy again; gossip in the colleague canteen does not mean confidential papers are published.

If it was an Appendix G dispute, why should that be confidential?

If it's a more general dispute about the interpretation of one of the Laws of Chess, that equally ought to be public, so that a rewording can be considered.

We're not playing twenty questions here but both your speculations are wrong.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Andrew Z, are you allowed to say whether the presence of a neutral arbiter at the match would likely have helped?

In this instance I think it would have done, yes.

[Roger de Coverly]

The impression I had was that Surrey were challenging and trying to overturn that (and hence the match result by board count).

That was my initial impression as well, but it now appears as if Surrey were (are?) challenging the decision of the Appeal. You would expect the Appeals Committee to come to a rapid decision, given that teams and players had to make arrangements about the final.

I'd suspect the initial reporting on the day of the match was what Lancs wanted to happen, rather than the controller's formal decision.

[NickFaulks]

The match result was reported on the ECF server.

If one captain reports a result but the other refuses to confirm it, does the report have any meaning? Does being first to the website put you in pole position?

To use my major company analogy again; gossip in the colleague canteen does not mean confidential papers are published.

We still don't seem to know whether the full decision of the Appeal Committee is confidential.

Am I correct in thinking that it has been sent to the Surrey Board? If it has, have they been asked to keep it to themselves or would the ECF be happy for them to show it ( with any reasonable redactions ) to their members?

I have no doubt that the Appeal Committee did a good job in the light of the information in their hands, but Surrey players who were at the venue are at a loss to understand what that information can have been. At present, all we have is "you lost and we can't tell you why".