A new twist on mobile Phones.

[Bill Porter]

At an Enfield v Barking NCCL match which I captained on 21st September a mobile phone "beeped".

This prompted accusations by Barking on the night, first against Enfield's Board 2 and later their Board 5.

Enfield corresponded with the NCCl Secretary about this but made no complaint.

On 24th October the NCCl Secretary informed the two clubs that Enfield was to be given a default point because a phone belonging to an Enfield player on board 3, 4 or 5 had probably beeped. Had these players not lost their games they would have been deemed to have lost by default.


A request to the NCCL by Enfield for copies of Barking's statements and comments has been refused and a request for a copy of their complaint has been ignored.

More info on http://www.enfieldchessclub.org.uk/bark ... mmary.html etc

[Peter Ackley]

Having not been present at the time, and basing any comments made solely in the post and also on the Enfield website (brief read), there do appear to be problems:
(i) A player (in the NCL) loses if the telephone 'audibly rings' - the description is vague and no-one seems to have decided if the telephone actually 'audibly rang'. Also, what is 'audible ringing'? You could argue the sound of a text message being received either way.
(ii) No-one knows who's mobile made the "sound", which team's mobile made the "sound", and even whether it was a mobile. I've heard of Sat-Navs making noises, as well as having heard watches and alarm clocks. "Innocent until proven guilty" seems appropriate here - 'most likely' and 'probably' are not definitive enough to base decisions on.
(iii) Without going through the NCL rules fully it appears that the punishment against 'audible ringing' is made directly and solely against the player who's phone 'audibly rang'. Is there scope within the rules to punish the team if the culprit cannot be identified - how exactly is this Enfield club's fault?
(iv) There should be a league policy to deal with disputes. In the least it should give scope for representations from both parties before a decision is made, and provide details of the relevant appeals structure.

[Gary Cook]

It is a shame that Enfield have taken the step to post this onto this site as the case has now been put to the League's Management Committee for a final decision.
I hopw that any comments made on this forum do not impact on them making the correct decision - whether it backs my original decision or not.

Gary Cook
NCCL Secretary

[Gary Cook]

Sorry, also meant to add that the info on the link to Enfield CC'w website is not complete and obviously only gives the Enfield side of the story.
Gary

[Bill Porter]

Sorry, also meant to add that the info on the link to Enfield CC'w website is not complete and obviously only gives the Enfield side of the story.
Gary

Enfield has not been given Barking's side of the story or even its complaint; you are welcome to post those if you want to.

[Gary Cook]

Bill
I do not intend to post any information onto this site as this dispute has now gone to the appeal stage - exactly as you asked for.
I have simply posted so that anyone who reads your post understands that they do not have a balanced viewpoint.
Gary

[Richard Bates]

Well it provided some light amusement for a Sunday afternoon.

[Peter Rhodes]

It is a shame that Enfield have taken the step to post this onto this site as the case has now been put to the League's Management Committee for a final decision.
I hopw that any comments made on this forum do not impact on them making the correct decision - whether it backs my original decision or not.

Gary Cook
NCCL Secretary

In my experience, people take such measures when they lose confidence in the formal mechanisms working effectively.
No-one should have need to fear transparency and the truth.

Gary, if I were in your place I would consider this an excellent opportunity to demonstrate that the workings of the league and committee are in good working order, and a further opportunity to show your talent for mediation and diplomacy. Every cloud has a silver lining.

[Ben Purton]

No offence guys but common, claiming defaults like this at this level is pathetic.

[Sean Hewitt]

Hi Bill,

I'll ask the obvious question!

Did an Enfield players phone actually make a noise? This point doesn't seem to have been addressed in your post.

[John Saunders]

I wonder how many chess administrator hours are spent dealing with the fall-out from mobile phone incidents. FIDE's mobile phone law is simply too draconian for implementation at domestic club/league level - or indeed at any level. I am surprised that more leagues don't simply opt out and replace it with something less drastic. Then these disputes wouldn't arise.

[Bill Porter]

Hi Bill,

I'll ask the obvious question!

Did an Enfield players phone actually make a noise? This point doesn't seem to have been addressed in your post.

Hi Sean

For brevity, that was only covered on the Enfield website. I checked at Barking's request that none of the Enfield players' phones had rung. The Barking captain refused to check his players' phones because they, he said, had none. After the match a Barking player showed me his switched off phone.

[Jonathan Bryant]

(ii) No-one knows who's mobile made the "sound", which team's mobile made the "sound", and even whether it was a mobile.

I think it is 99% likely that the owner of the beeping device knows it was theirs and whether or not it was a mobile phone.


However, talking of rules in general - I prefer the London League rule that you get a warning if your mobile phone goes off. Seems the best compromise.

[JamesMurphy]

I totally agree, the rule on mobile phones by FIDE is totally draconian and needs to change. Clearly when a mobile phone goes of in a quiet auditorium and the top level and disturbes a player at a crucial moment then it's a problem. But let's be honest here... at domestic level where players have to deal with the humdrum of society going on around them it's up to the player to maintain concentration and focus and block out the outside world. If they can't then they should work on it more. A single mobile phone going off is not going to cause a huge issue surely.

In my opinion it is a sad indictment on those who choose to claim a default - chess should be a fun sport not one where winning is paramount and any small amount of noise is met by "shhhhh-ing". I see this too often even at the domestic level. It's only a little bit of noise... deal with it.

[Peter Rhodes]

A single mobile phone going off is not going to cause a huge issue surely.

What worries me is the "slippery slope".

Once you say that one interruption during a match is acceptable, where does that end ?