English Chess Forum

Nick, you are quite right: I could have ruled amending the motion in this way out of order but it seemed to me that it was achieving the same aim (female participation) but without several (probable) defaults so my judgement was to let it be voted on (and the motion came very close to being passed, of course).

"According to the report by the Gold members' representative, the proposal became that a county fielding a female player got an extra board point. Nothing about whether the female player had to satisfy the same eligibility requirement as the male players."

How was it actually worded? There could be ambiguity, so that if you did a Birchall and fielded an entirely female team, you would be leading 16-0 before a pawn was moved!

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2019 3:55 pm

How was it actually worded?

The report emailed to Gold members said this.

After some debate, there was an amendment proposed by Tim Wall and agreed by delegates so that the motion actually voted on was:
'A team in the County Championships shall receive one extra point if it fields at least one female player in the National Stage, starting from the 2019/2020 season.'

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:53 pm

My impression was that the eligibility requirement remained.

This was also my understanding - i.e. that the part of the proposal to waive the qualification requirement was removed.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:53 pm

On a more general point, I was surprised that the pre-announced motion could be replaced without any warning by one to which it bore no resemblance.

Had Council members been able to consult on the amended proposal I wonder if it might have been approved? I wrote down that there were 88 votes for the amended motion and 91 against with 34 declared abstentions.

I think so Angus. I decided I would abstain, other things being equal, before the meeting. But I am also a bit cautious about anything proposed at the last minute, and that probably true of some other people too.

Generally I have been quite impressed by Chris's work so far as Women's Director. A shame he was not able to find a rule change that worked for the county championship, but the more ideas he generates the better.

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:30 pm

A shame he was not able to find a rule change that worked for the county championship, but the more ideas he generates the better.

I don't think there's more than 10 to 12 counties able and willing to enter teams into the Open Championship, and that's in a good year. So any rule changes would have been the rest of the ECF dictating additional conditions on an event they wouldn't enter anyway.

Post withdrawn