Finals day 2 July

Discussion about all aspects of the ECF County Championships.
Angus French
Posts: 2151
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am

Re: Finals day 2 July

Post by Angus French » Sun Jun 26, 2016 11:52 am

Maybe it's not my place to speak but I know the Surrey U180 captain and a number of the team's players are concerned about the decision of the appeal panel. Likely the matter will come up at today's Surrey AGM and I understand it will be discussed at an SCCA Board Meeting next Sunday.

PeterFarr
Posts: 624
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:20 pm
Location: Horsham, Sussex

Re: Finals day 2 July

Post by PeterFarr » Sun Jun 26, 2016 1:40 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
PeterFarr wrote: Absolutely. The legendary openness and transparency of FIDE is a model for us all.
Nonetheless, what I said is true, and if you could have produced a counterexample instead of the usual invective you would have done. If a FIDE Appeals Committee had taken this decision it would have been published. Deny that if you like.
Or you could find an example of me producing invective. But you can't, because I haven't.

PeterFarr
Posts: 624
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:20 pm
Location: Horsham, Sussex

Re: Finals day 2 July

Post by PeterFarr » Sun Jun 26, 2016 1:58 pm

PeterFarr wrote:
NickFaulks wrote:
PeterFarr wrote: Absolutely. The legendary openness and transparency of FIDE is a model for us all.
Nonetheless, what I said is true, and if you could have produced a counterexample instead of the usual invective you would have done. If a FIDE Appeals Committee had taken this decision it would have been published. Deny that if you like.
Or you could find an example of me producing invective. But you can't, because I haven't.
Ps - I don't deny your point about the appeals committee. I daresay you are right.

NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Finals day 2 July

Post by NickFaulks » Sun Jun 26, 2016 2:05 pm

PeterFarr wrote: Ps - I don't deny your point about the appeals committee. I daresay you are right.
Thank you. That is the only point I was making.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2193
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm

Re: Finals day 2 July

Post by Sean Hewitt » Sun Jun 26, 2016 2:13 pm

Angus French wrote:Maybe it's not my place to speak but I know the Surrey U180 captain and a number of the team's players are concerned about the decision of the appeal panel.
I wonder if anyone is going to reveal what [allegedly] happened? :roll:

NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Finals day 2 July

Post by NickFaulks » Sun Jun 26, 2016 2:44 pm

Those who know have been asked not to speak out until Surrey have had their meeting.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 6028
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: Finals day 2 July

Post by Carl Hibbard » Sun Jun 26, 2016 4:13 pm

NickFaulks wrote:Those who know have been asked not to speak out until Surrey have had their meeting.
It is going to appear here eventually.
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

John McKenna

Re: Finals day 2 July

Post by John McKenna » Sun Jun 26, 2016 5:52 pm

Anyway, the line up for the finals, slated for 2nd July, has been completed just in time, one way or another.

(Good to see the ECF explaining their position here on the forum, and the opposition asking relevant questions.)

Bob Kane
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:14 pm

Re: Finals day 2 July

Post by Bob Kane » Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:29 pm

What they don't tell you is that.....
Middlesex
are in the final because the other semi-finalist couldn't raise a team , despite them getting a bye into the semi and been given six months notice!

Middx get 3 days notice of default and incur costs (rail fares etc)

Surrey Lancs
Home director overrules arbiter and denies right of any further appeal .. were Surrey allowed to submit their case? apparently not

all very encouraging !

NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Finals day 2 July

Post by NickFaulks » Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:37 pm

Bob Kane wrote: Surrey Lancs
Home director overrules arbiter
That's another new twist. I thought it was an Appeals Committee.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 3551
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Finals day 2 July

Post by Ian Thompson » Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:49 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Bob Kane wrote: Surrey Lancs
Home director overrules arbiter and denies right of any further appeal
That's another new twist. I thought it was an Appeals Committee.
So would anyone else who's read the post in this thread on Page 2 at Sat Jun 25, 2016 8:15 pm.

Bob Kane
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:14 pm

Re: Finals day 2 July

Post by Bob Kane » Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:12 pm

to deny further appeals without hearing all the evidence is very poor.

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Finals day 2 July

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:16 pm

Bob Kane wrote:What they don't tell you is that.....
Middlesex
are in the final because the other semi-finalist couldn't raise a team , despite them getting a bye into the semi and been given six months notice!

Middx get 3 days notice of default and incur costs (rail fares etc)

Surrey Lancs
Home director overrules arbiter and denies right of any further appeal .. were Surrey allowed to submit their case? apparently not

all very encouraging !
Completely and utterly wrong.

I'm not going to discuss the detail of the Surrey vs Lancs dispute. However I am happy to state the following.

1, The complaint from Surrey was submitted to myself as controller which is the correct procedure under the rules. As the dispute concerned the laws of chess I consulted a senior arbiter after confirming this individual was acceptable to both parties. I also solicited statements from both sides including clarifying a point where it was necessary.

2, After discussion the arbiter and myself made a decision and communicated it to all parties. There was an appeal against the original decision.

3, The Director of Home Chess convened an appeals committee of three to hear the appeal. A decision was made which is final and binding under the rules. Contrary to the comment above the Home Director himself had no direct imput and two of the members of the appeal panel are also fully qualified arbiters.

A few general comments.

The appeals committee system is new this year; previously disputes were ruled on by the controller in the first instance with the director of home chess hearing the appeal. The change follows the Yorkshire/ Warwickshire dispute last year where both Alex and myself had to declare conflicts of interest and scrabble for individuals who could deal with the dispute.

All parties involved the decision can only do so on the facts submitted to them. I would be interested to know what information Surrey thinks has not been considered.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Finals day 2 July

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:22 pm

For the record the appeals procedure is defined under rule D1.1. I shall copy and paste it here.

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.

So the process is a) controller makes decision b) appeal heard if necessary and decision final. I would suspect this is consistent with most competitions (it is with the Yorkshire league for example) and in terms of the County Championship it certainly predates my involvement and probably Alex's.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Neil Graham
Posts: 1939
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm

Re: Finals day 2 July

Post by Neil Graham » Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:53 pm

Bob Kane wrote:What they don't tell you is that.....
Middlesex
are in the final because the other semi-finalist couldn't raise a team , despite them getting a bye into the semi and been given six months notice!

Middx get 3 days notice of default and incur costs (rail fares etc)

Surrey Lancs
Home director overrules arbiter and denies right of any further appeal .. were Surrey allowed to submit their case? apparently not

all very encouraging !
In respect of the Middlesex win by default, the competition rules state that

"Should any County, having been nominated by its Union for the Final Stage of any of the Championships and having accepted such nomination in accordance with Section B, default any match, or any game in a match, it shall be required to reimburse such of its opponent’s reasonable expenses incurred as the Controller shall determine; and unless the Controller decides otherwise shall also pay a fine of £10 per game defaulted or £100 per match defaulted, whichever is less; such fines being payable to the English Chess Federation." Your opponents will therefore be fined £100 and if you have any "reasonable expenses" they will also be reimbursed if appropriate.