Motions

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Post Reply
Alan Walton
Posts: 1163
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: Motions

Post by Alan Walton » Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:06 pm

Adam Raoof wrote:
MartinCarpenter wrote:In the name surely :)
Not exactly - I represent a county that doesn't actually exist!
Which is that Adam?

User avatar
Adam Raoof
Posts: 2220
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:16 pm
Location: NW4 4UY
Contact:

Re: Motions

Post by Adam Raoof » Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:16 pm

Alan Walton wrote:
Adam Raoof wrote:
MartinCarpenter wrote:In the name surely :)
Not exactly - I represent a county that doesn't actually exist!
Which is that Adam?
Middlesex. My point is that people could still turn up on a Saturday and play chess for Surrey against Middlesex or Greater Manchester, without any eligibility rules. It wouldn't make anyone more or less likely to be selected for a team. It might even have a positive effect.

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1314
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Motions

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:34 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:[
It's been implied that the selection of these players had been approved in advance by those in charge of the Counties Championship, so no formal protest was raised.
To suggest that there was an `advance approval` is a bit of a leap. A possible eligibility query was raised which led to the Yorkshire Open captain asking Alex Holowczak a question. Those involved can speak for themselves, should they wish.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Brian Towers
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: Motions

Post by Brian Towers » Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:56 pm

Adam Raoof wrote:
Alan Walton wrote:you might as well do away with any rules and make everybody eligible for whoever they want to play for, but this defeats the purpose of the County Champs
Just for me, can someone point to a statement that defines the actual purpose of the counties championships?
An excellent question.

Many counties, mostly those who 30 years ago were classified as 'minor counties', have decided it doesn't serve a useful purpose and have stopped entering teams. How many counties actually entered teams this year?
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1127
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Motions

Post by Michael Flatt » Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:50 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote:[
It's been implied that the selection of these players had been approved in advance by those in charge of the Counties Championship, so no formal protest was raised.
To suggest that there was an `advance approval` is a bit of a leap. A possible eligibility query was raised which led to the Yorkshire Open captain asking Alex Holowczak a question. Those involved can speak for themselves, should they wish.
The fact that Yorkshire didn't submit a formal complaint within the time limit specified by the rules would suggest they didn't believe they had sufficient grounds to object to their opponent's team selection.

If you believe the rules have been infringed you have to raise an objection at the time to the appropriate authority.

Alan Walton
Posts: 1163
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: Motions

Post by Alan Walton » Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:18 pm

Michael Flatt wrote:
Andrew Zigmond wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote:[
It's been implied that the selection of these players had been approved in advance by those in charge of the Counties Championship, so no formal protest was raised.
To suggest that there was an `advance approval` is a bit of a leap. A possible eligibility query was raised which led to the Yorkshire Open captain asking Alex Holowczak a question. Those involved can speak for themselves, should they wish.
The fact that Yorkshire didn't submit a formal complaint within the time limit specified by the rules would suggest they didn't believe they had sufficient grounds to object to their opponent's team selection.

If you believe the rules have been infringed you have to raise an objection at the time to the appropriate authority.
When you are told they are abiding by the rules, it is very difficult to appeal; but when evidence comes later saying said rules may have been misinterpreted then what to you do, a bit late to appeal over a month later

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1127
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Motions

Post by Michael Flatt » Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:31 pm

Would playing for Marple in the East Lancashire Summer League be sufficient to claim eligibility as a Lancashire player?

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1382
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Motions

Post by Michael Farthing » Thu Aug 17, 2017 6:15 pm

I hope not. You playing for Lancashire would put my place in the team at risk!

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1127
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Motions

Post by Michael Flatt » Thu Aug 17, 2017 6:20 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:I hope not. You playing for Lancashire would put my place in the team at risk!
Don't worry. I am not currently planning to move - just looking at the possibilities.

Nick Grey
Posts: 631
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

Re: Motions

Post by Nick Grey » Thu Aug 17, 2017 6:42 pm

The eligibility criteria ought to be simplified and allow for the possibility of a transfer during a season.
Remove any dual eligibility ambiguities.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1382
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Motions

Post by Michael Farthing » Thu Aug 17, 2017 7:01 pm

Why stop there? Why not have transfers in the middle of a game?

Alan Walton
Posts: 1163
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: Motions

Post by Alan Walton » Thu Aug 17, 2017 7:06 pm

Michael Flatt wrote:Would playing for Marple in the East Lancashire Summer League be sufficient to claim eligibility as a Lancashire player?
I gather no, they Club has to be affiliated; Heywoodfor example is not affiliated to the MCF but competes in the Manchester league

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2330
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Motions

Post by MartinCarpenter » Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:30 pm

Marple is also not even geographically in historic Lancashire :) They do play for 3C's which is of course but very far from friendly to Lancashire county chess!

David Sedgwick
Posts: 2826
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Motions

Post by David Sedgwick » Thu Aug 17, 2017 9:03 pm

Michael Flatt wrote:Unless Greater Manchester actually field an Open team in the competition, I don't see any justification for blocking players turning out for another team with which they claim affiliation.
Last season Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Middlesex and Surrey all played in the U120 Division of the SCCU Counties Championships. Sussex did not.

If a number of Sussex U120 players had "claimed affiliation" to Surrey and played for them, do you not feel that any or all of Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent and Middlesex might have been entitled to object?

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1127
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Motions

Post by Michael Flatt » Thu Aug 17, 2017 9:12 pm

Well, if the eligibility of players to play for teams has become a significant concern, which it has, then some representation needs to be made to the organisers regarding the best method to validate a player's eligibility. It should apply equally to all teams in the competition.

If such a request doesn't achieve a satisfactory response then the next step would be to raise the concern with Council.

Post Reply