Finals day 2 July
-
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Re: Finals day 2 July
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.
-
- Posts: 624
- Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:20 pm
- Location: Horsham, Sussex
Re: Finals day 2 July
Or you could find an example of me producing invective. But you can't, because I haven't.NickFaulks wrote: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.PeterFarr wrote: Absolutely. The legendary openness and transparency of FIDE is a model for us all.
-
- Posts: 624
- Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:20 pm
- Location: Horsham, Sussex
Re: Finals day 2 July
Ps - I don't deny your point about the appeals committee. I daresay you are right.PeterFarr wrote:Or you could find an example of me producing invective. But you can't, because I haven't.NickFaulks wrote: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.PeterFarr wrote: Absolutely. The legendary openness and transparency of FIDE is a model for us all.
-
- Posts: 8453
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Finals day 2 July
Thank you. That is the only point I was making.PeterFarr wrote: Ps - I don't deny your point about the appeals committee. I daresay you are right.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 2193
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Re: Finals day 2 July
I wonder if anyone is going to reveal what [allegedly] happened?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.
-
- Posts: 8453
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Finals day 2 July
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.
-
- Posts: 6028
- Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
- Location: Evesham
Re: Finals day 2 July
It is going to appear here eventually.NickFaulks wrote:Those who know have been asked not to speak out until Surrey have had their meeting.
Cheers
Carl Hibbard
Carl Hibbard
Re: Finals day 2 July
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.)
(Good to see the ECF explaining their position here on the forum, and the opposition asking relevant questions.)
-
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:14 pm
Re: Finals day 2 July
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 !
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 !
-
- Posts: 8453
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Finals day 2 July
That's another new twist. I thought it was an Appeals Committee.Bob Kane wrote: Surrey Lancs
Home director overrules arbiter
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 3551
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
- Location: Awbridge, Hampshire
Re: Finals day 2 July
So would anyone else who's read the post in this thread on Page 2 at Sat Jun 25, 2016 8:15 pm.NickFaulks wrote:That's another new twist. I thought it was an Appeals Committee.Bob Kane wrote: Surrey Lancs
Home director overrules arbiter and denies right of any further appeal
-
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:14 pm
Re: Finals day 2 July
to deny further appeals without hearing all the evidence is very poor.
-
- Posts: 2073
- Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
- Location: Harrogate
Re: Finals day 2 July
Completely and utterly wrong.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 !
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
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own
-
- Posts: 2073
- Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
- Location: Harrogate
Re: Finals day 2 July
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.
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
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own
-
- Posts: 1939
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm
Re: Finals day 2 July
In respect of the Middlesex win by default, the competition rules state thatBob 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 !
"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.