Re: Finals day 2 July
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 4:04 pm
I understand that there were lots of positive comments about the day. Many thanks to everyone involved - organisers, arbiters and above all players.
The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
https://www.ecforum.org.uk/
Yes, been over to Yorkshire for lunch for the 2nd Sunday running - absolutely beautiful countryside, warm sunshine and a wonderful place to beMartinCarpenter wrote:Well, that does have to be qualified slightly - yes, we're fielding much stronger teams for the finals than anyone else. Not quite sure why.Mick Norris wrote:Well done to Yorkshire, they are just better than the rest at the moment
The 1/4's and 1/2's? Those teams were fairly vunerable and the match results were close. Same vs Lancashire actually, not that it counted for anything formal!
Fantastic result(s) though. We'd somehow not even won two in a row before this run so three is very good going
I can tell you what I was doing next time I see you, but in the meantime, Forums have earsMartinCarpenter wrote:Definitely
Nothing further has appeared on this alleged incident so would I be correct in assuming that it was something trivial or even a simple misunderstanding?NickFaulks wrote:But that's not the full story, is it? I was there, and regard that result as ludicrous.Neil Graham wrote:The result is Surrey 7.5 Lancashire 8.5 as originally reported.NickFaulks wrote:Something unpleasant seems to have occurred in the U180 dispute, but I don't know what.
No.Michael Flatt wrote:Nothing further has appeared on this alleged incident so would I be correct in assuming that it was something trivial or even a simple misunderstanding?NickFaulks wrote:But that's not the full story, is it? I was there, and regard that result as ludicrous.Neil Graham wrote: The result is Surrey 7.5 Lancashire 8.5 as originally reported.
Lancs lost the final - Karma?NickFaulks wrote:No.Michael Flatt wrote:Nothing further has appeared on this alleged incident so would I be correct in assuming that it was something trivial or even a simple misunderstanding?NickFaulks wrote: But that's not the full story, is it? I was there, and regard that result as ludicrous.
I realise that it is the "as originally reported" in this comment which most annoys me. The captains disagreed on the result and the Lancashire captain got his version in first, presumably because the "neutral venue" of Derby was closer to Lancashire than to Surrey. If this gives Lancashire some moral high ground, then I think captains should bear this in mind in future.Neil Graham wrote:The result is Surrey 7.5 Lancashire 8.5 as originally reported.NickFaulks wrote:Something unpleasant seems to have occurred in the U180 dispute, but I don't know what.
Neutral venues will form part of my report this year. While Derby may be nearer to Lancashire as the crow flies it should be noted that Lancs is less well connected by motorway then the Southern Counties, especially for players who live out in the coastal/ rural parts.NickFaulks wrote:I realise that it is the "as originally reported" in this comment which most annoys me. The captains disagreed on the result and the Lancashire captain got his version in first, presumably because the "neutral venue" of Derby was closer to Lancashire than to Surrey. If this gives Lancashire some moral high ground, then I think captains should bear this in mind in future.Neil Graham wrote:The result is Surrey 7.5 Lancashire 8.5 as originally reported.NickFaulks wrote:Something unpleasant seems to have occurred in the U180 dispute, but I don't know what.
Andrew Zigmond wrote: I would also note that Surrey did not contact me about the match until Tuesday 14th June, two days after the match.
If Surrey had missed the 48hr window to report or dispute the result and the Competition Controller was unaware of a dispute it is understandable that he would accept the result as reported by one captain; however, if he had been requested to provide a list of Arbiters to assist the captains then the situation becomes less clear since he would have been alerted to the dispute.County Championships 2015/16 – rules[1] wrote: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.
No such request was made. The only person who requested the assistance of an arbiter was myself when making the initial ruling. At this stage both teams were consulted to ensure the arbiter concerned was acceptable to them.Michael Flatt wrote: however, if he had been requested to provide a list of Arbiters to assist the captains then the situation becomes less clear since he would have been alerted to the dispute.
In that case the rule seems crystal clear. If one captain reports a result within the specified time and the second doesn't the reported result must stand.Andrew Zigmond wrote:No such request was made. The only person who requested the assistance of an arbiter was myself when making the initial ruling. At this stage both teams were consulted to ensure the arbiter concerned was acceptable to them.Michael Flatt wrote: however, if he had been requested to provide a list of Arbiters to assist the captains then the situation becomes less clear since he would have been alerted to the dispute.
The Appeal Committee reported to the Controller & the Director of Home Chess and thereby discharged its duties. The situation regarding the report is given on Page 3 of this thread by Alex Holowczak as follows "I am not publishing the verdict of the Appeals Committee. So far as I am concerned, the information has been distributed to those involved, and if they want to bring it into the public domain, that's up to them. To the best of my recollection, I haven't published other disputes/appeals in the recent past, and I don't see why this one is so different.Michael Flatt wrote:In that case the rule seems crystal clear. If one captain reports a result within the specified time and the second doesn't the reported result must stand.Andrew Zigmond wrote:No such request was made. The only person who requested the assistance of an arbiter was myself when making the initial ruling. At this stage both teams were consulted to ensure the arbiter concerned was acceptable to them.Michael Flatt wrote: however, if he had been requested to provide a list of Arbiters to assist the captains then the situation becomes less clear since he would have been alerted to the dispute.
Why is there such reluctance for the Appeal Panel to openly report the facts of the dispute and its resolution?