Finals day 2 July

[John Reyes]

they will put something out as it has happed before when Lancashire Under 100 Team got thought in the final vs Essex but there was a disputed and Essex went thought to the final!!

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Care to elaborate?

I don't know whether the Appeal Committee's view of events is going to be published. If it is, then it's probably better to give them a couple of days to do that.

Can I make a suggestion? I have no knowledge at all of what happened, but now the appeals process has concluded, if anyone is going to say anything at all about it, why not wait until after the final has been held? At least let the final take place first.

[NickFaulks]

I certainly hope that before the final is held there will be an explanation of how the teams reached it.

[Mike Truran]

I certainly hope that before the final is held there will be an explanation of how the teams reached it.

Well, unless there is a requirement to publish, I imagine that that would Alex's call. I certainly wouldn't do so if it were me, given that it will just provide more corpses for vultures to pick over. You're hardly a disinterested commentator anyway, are you?

PS Just because "you were there, and regard the result as ludicrous" it doesn't mean that your view (whatever that is - you haven't seen fit to share it with us) is the correct one. The Appeals Committee is an independent body and has, I imagine, reached its decision in good faith, having considered the evidence. I understand that there were around five different versions of what happened. It sounds like Rashomon without the murder.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

your view (whatever that is - you haven't seen fit to share it with us)

Ack. Don't encourage him. Yes, he was there and playing in the match. Another contributor to this forum was the person playing for Surrey in the game in question. I really think it is a bad idea for the details to leak out and be discussed in public. Make a formal post-appeals protest through the right channels if needed, but don't dissect it here.

[PeterFarr]

But that's not the full story, is it? I was there, and regard that result as ludicrous.

From the EU referendum thread:

A final thought on this one. I always chuckle at the view "it's terrible that such vital matters should be decided by only 52%. It should be the 48% that I'm in".

[Mike Truran]

[Andrew Zigmond]

Care to elaborate?

I don't know whether the Appeal Committee's view of events is going to be published. If it is, then it's probably better to give them a couple of days to do that.

What information to put in the public domain is Alex's call. As far as I am concerned, as the dispute involved an individual game rather than simply an interpretation of the competition rules (as happened in the U120 earlier this year and the U160 last year) the matter should be treated as confidential.

[benedgell]

I certainly hope that before the final is held there will be an explanation of how the teams reached it.

I was one of the people on the Appeals Committee, and won't be discussing the outcome of the appeal here.

[Michael Flatt]

What information to put in the public domain is Alex's call. As far as I am concerned, as the dispute involved an individual game rather than simply an interpretation of the competition rules (as happened in the U120 earlier this year and the U160 last year) the matter should be treated as confidential.

Unless the dispute is subject to further appeal I don't see any problem in disclosing the relevant facts regarding the incident, the basis of the appeal and the reason or reasons for over-turning of the decision of the appeal's panel.

If players, team captains and other interested parties are to understand the rules and the appeal's procedure I believe that it would be beneficial for the Competition Controller and Director of Home Chess to publish a factual summary of the dispute and its resolution.

[NickFaulks]

If players, team captains and other interested parties are to understand the rules and the appeal's procedure I believe that it would be beneficial for the Competition Controller and Director of Home Chess to publish a factual summary of the dispute and its resolution.

Agreed.

[Roger de Coverly]

If players, team captains and other interested parties are to understand the rules and the appeal's procedure I believe that it would be beneficial for the Competition Controller and Director of Home Chess to publish a factual summary of the dispute and its resolution.

It's of benefit to any match captain or league organiser to know that a dispute can and did arise and what the resolution of it had been. Were there aspects to it where competition rules could have been clearer?

[Andrew Zigmond]

If players, team captains and other interested parties are to understand the rules and the appeal's procedure I believe that it would be beneficial for the Competition Controller and Director of Home Chess to publish a factual summary of the dispute and its resolution.

Agreed.

I would also agree IF the dispute solely concerned the rules of the competition. In that instance there is a place for an open debate. However I do not consider it appropriate in this instance.

[Michael Flatt]

I would also agree IF the dispute solely concerned the rules of the competition. In that instance there is a place for an open debate. However I do not consider it appropriate in this instance.

I can only suggest that it would be best to make an official statement at the earliest opportunity and avoid the need for Members of Council to take an active interest in what should be a simple and non-controversial matter.

[MartinCarpenter]

Can we perhaps get this moved to its own thread, and at least keep this one about finals day? It doesn't matter so much that we've lost the one about the main draw to random diversion but the finals haven't happened yet!