Motions

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16128
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Motions

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Aug 17, 2017 9:29 pm

David Sedgwick wrote: 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?
The other side of that question is whether it is right and acceptable to bar Sussex resident U120 players from Saturday afternoon regional team competitions in their grading band.

In cricket, it's been many years since even Yorkshire ditched strict birth or residence eligibility requirements as a requirement to play county cricket.

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1321
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Motions

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Thu Aug 17, 2017 9:36 pm

David Sedgwick wrote: 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?
Are you suggesting that a third party (in this context a county not involved in a specific match) should have the right to raise a complaint if they feel that a rule has not been applied properly? This appears to set a slightly dangerous precedent.
Michael Flatt wrote: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.
The method for validating a player's eligibility is quite straightforward; the opposing county should flag any concern together with their reasons for doing so, the controller then seeks information from the other county and then makes a ruling which is subject to appeal.

If people start quoting and counter quoting from legal documents dating back forty years then matters become extremely murky and complex and nothing Council can do will make it less so. I should perhaps add that I know the Director of Home Chess has spent some time compiling the documents relating this particular issue and has taken advice from two extremely distinguished past servants of the federation.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 2119
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Motions

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:55 am

"Are you suggesting that a third party (in this context a county not involved in a specific match) should have the right to raise a complaint if they feel that a rule has not been applied properly? This appears to set a slightly dangerous precedent."

Er, yes. It could affect the rest of the competition.

Having said that, a couple of years ago, I detected one Surrey club had used an ineligible player in several matches, so rather than complain, I told the club who should have won that competition and let them complain, which they didn't!

John Reyes
Posts: 191
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:51 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Motions

Post by John Reyes » Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:01 am

All I want is that how did they made that decision and also how they will tight up the eligibility
and for the ecf to answer alan question in public!!

they no point of bringing this as a motion to the meeting as it will not been heard till april meeting as least
Any postings on here represent my personal views only

John Reyes
Posts: 191
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:51 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Motions

Post by John Reyes » Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:02 am

Alan Walton wrote:
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.
If players from Greater Manchester want to play for any other county then they are quite able to affiliate with a club within that county, be it Lancashire and as my previous example Cornwall; what this is all about that dual eligibility doesn't/shouldn't exist and all eligibility rules stand for all counties in the competition, otherwise 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
I have 2 weeks in Torquay for my holiday so does that mean that I can play for devon then lol!!
Any postings on here represent my personal views only

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

Re: Motions

Post by Michael Flatt » Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:57 pm

John Reyes wrote:All I want is that how did they made that decision and also how they will tight up the eligibility
and for the ecf to answer alan question in public!!

they no point of bringing this as a motion to the meeting as it will not been heard till april meeting as least
Transparency and scrutiny of the decision making process are important considerations that will help ensure that the criteria for eligibility can be properly understood and applied consistently.

As an independent observer, the only publicly available record available to me to check a player's eligibility is the ECF Grading database.

With regards eligibility by grade, it is relatively straight forward: Identify the players and check their published grades against the limit specified for the competition. Where a player has no published grade the relevant captain must provide information to enable the competition controller to publish an agreed estimated grade for the purposes of the competition before being able to be selected for a team.

With regards eligibility by geographic association, the publicly available information is less precise and mostly unavailable. The simplest record to check is the playing of a graded game in or for a club associated within the relevant county. The database will. of course, only record games played up to the last six monthly publication of the grading list and, therefore, will not contain record a club that a player has recently joined.

The ECF does not, and should not, maintain a register of a player's place of birth so eligibility by birth is perhaps the most difficult association to prove. Perhaps, it should be dropped from the eligibility regulations of the competition.

If it is thought that the eligibility requirements and verification procedures should be reviewed and amended, then the process should be put in motion even though the the revised regulations may not come into force immediately.

Alan Walton
Posts: 1165
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: Motions

Post by Alan Walton » Fri Aug 18, 2017 1:31 pm

Michael Flatt wrote:
John Reyes wrote:All I want is that how did they made that decision and also how they will tight up the eligibility
and for the ecf to answer alan question in public!!

they no point of bringing this as a motion to the meeting as it will not been heard till april meeting as least
Transparency and scrutiny of the decision making process are important considerations that will help ensure that the criteria for eligibility can be properly understood and applied consistently.

As an independent observer, the only publicly available record available to me to check a player's eligibility is the ECF Grading database.

With regards eligibility by grade, it is relatively straight forward: Identify the players and check their published grades against the limit specified for the competition. Where a player has no published grade the relevant captain must provide information to enable the competition controller to publish an agreed estimated grade for the purposes of the competition before being able to be selected for a team.

With regards eligibility by geographic association, the publicly available information is less precise and mostly unavailable. The simplest record to check is the playing of a graded game in or for a club associated within the relevant county. The database will. of course, only record games played up to the last six monthly publication of the grading list and, therefore, will not contain record a club that a player has recently joined.

The ECF does not, and should not, maintain a register of a player's place of birth so eligibility by birth is perhaps the most difficult association to prove. Perhaps, it should be dropped from the eligibility regulations of the competition.

If it is thought that the eligibility requirements and verification procedures should be reviewed and amended, then the process should be put in motion even though the the revised regulations may not come into force immediately.
Hi, you might be correct that it is difficult to check certain elements of the criteria; so you could go down to just the club affiliation part

But this still doesn't answer the question about dual eligibility part, the players who played for Lancashire would have still been ineligible if you just took the club part; we want the ECF to double check all their documentation about this ongoing case, and with the evidence provided earlier may show that the original determination made for that weekend was incorrect; I am not asking for anything to change as a result from the years competition, but future years should be rectified accordingly

Mike Gunn
Posts: 593
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm

Re: Motions

Post by Mike Gunn » Fri Aug 18, 2017 1:34 pm

The whole system of eligibility is based on trust. The prospect of us all turning up with birth certificates or club membership cards simply doesn't bear thinking about. There is a certain feeling of attachment to a particular club or county that comes from playing for them for a number of years and partly according to where you "belong" or came from. Now I know most chess players like rule based systems, but if you stop to consider it the eligibility rules for county chess are so widely cast that you could play for any county you like (if they will have you) simply by joining an appropriate chess club. I think the current system is just about right, whatever rules apply to the Greater Manchester area.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1385
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Motions

Post by Michael Farthing » Fri Aug 18, 2017 1:49 pm

Following on from Michael Flatt's post above (which was the last post when I started writing this):

There is also the residence, school and college options all of which are sensible. I would suggest that these are unambiguously best defined by ceremonial county (which was invented, in part, to handle such situations as exist here). These are unambiguously defined in law and because we are dealing with current residence there are no problems of historic boundaries. It would cut through a lot of the petty quarrelling and jockeying that accompanies the Lancs v Manchester dispute. I have a few doubts (which might well be inaccurate or addressable):

1) I am not quite sure that everywhere is actually in a ceremonial county

2) There is perhaps a problem that London would subsume quite a few and become a ludicrously large entity (maybe it needs special treatment by grouping boroughs and donating them elsewhere in line with current practice?).

3) Boundary commissions and governments tend to make changes on a fairly regular basis, which would be annoying (though perhaps fewer with ceremonial counties than with administrative boundaries?).

I would also like to see the number of places that a union has at the national stages be dependent on the number of counties it can show participated in the union stage. I haven't worked out quite what effect that might have on particular unions :-)

Mike Gunn
Posts: 593
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm

Re: Motions

Post by Mike Gunn » Fri Aug 18, 2017 2:18 pm

The problem with the ceremonial counties idea (or any other definition of counties) is that you are imposing something from the ECF that doesn't exist now. I would think most counties define their own areas which probably correspond mostly to some local government boundaries, but are also partly based on historical boundaries, e.g. in London. For example the geographical extent of Surrey for chess purposes is defined in our constitution/articles and it's not clear that the ECF is in a position to change that.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Motions

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Fri Aug 18, 2017 2:25 pm

Mike Gunn wrote: For example the geographical extent of Surrey for chess purposes is defined in our constitution/articles and it's not clear that the ECF is in a position to change that.
It doesn't have to; it can simply say that's not the definition of Surrey that applies to ECF competitions. (I don't see why it would, but that's another matter.)

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

Re: Motions

Post by Adam Raoof » Fri Aug 18, 2017 2:30 pm

If I turn out for a club in my local league, then it is accepted by other clubs that I am eligible to play for that club. As long as I only represent one club in one league, nobody appeals, or checks my eligibility - it is a matter for the club I represent. That is trust.

Why should it be any different in county chess? If I am selected and play for Surrey, whose business is it to check my "eligibility"? It is between me and the organisers of the team. It should not be the business of the ECF or anyone else.

Moreover even if I live in Surrey and play for a club in Surrey, there is no guarantee that I will be selected for a county side representing Surrey. In that instance why should I be prevented from playing for another county that will have me?

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2333
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Motions

Post by MartinCarpenter » Fri Aug 18, 2017 3:16 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote:
David Sedgwick wrote: 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?
Are you suggesting that a third party (in this context a county not involved in a specific match) should have the right to raise a complaint if they feel that a rule has not been applied properly? This appears to set a slightly dangerous precedent.
I don't know this time - I always felt that if anyone was going to complain it'd be GM. Yorkshire didn't really mind that much, indeed I think most of the team were glad of the challenge.

GM though have more or less seen some of their potential players poached. Hard to be absolutely sympathetic with them not fielding an open county team at all but you can see why they might like to have it properly clarified.

Alan Walton
Posts: 1165
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: Motions

Post by Alan Walton » Fri Aug 18, 2017 3:27 pm

MartinCarpenter wrote:GM though have more or less seen some of their potential players poached. Hard to be absolutely sympathetic with them not fielding an open county team at all but you can see why they might like to have it properly clarified.
One of the main reasons we don't have a team is because of the lack of interest in playing in the MCCU with the top players, alot now feel we should be competing in the NCCU, but we all know how thats been going; so whilst Lancashire are free to pick our players whenever they want, what is the chance they will ever negotiate entry; ironically we offered the dual eligibility as part of inclusion in the NCCU which they declined

John Reyes
Posts: 191
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:51 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Motions

Post by John Reyes » Fri Aug 18, 2017 5:02 pm

Alan Walton wrote:
MartinCarpenter wrote:GM though have more or less seen some of their potential players poached. Hard to be absolutely sympathetic with them not fielding an open county team at all but you can see why they might like to have it properly clarified.
One of the main reasons we don't have a team is because of the lack of interest in playing in the MCCU with the top players, alot now feel we should be competing in the NCCU, but we all know how thats been going; so whilst Lancashire are free to pick our players whenever they want, what is the chance they will ever negotiate entry; ironically we offered the dual eligibility as part of inclusion in the NCCU which they declined

I would offer to captain a county team but the players don't wanted to travel to the midlands counties and rather play in leeds/Bradford and Heywood

I will be going to the Lancashire agm and It will be interested to see what they said, as I hear this line every year

"The President was proud to report that Lancashire was the only county to muster teams in
all sections of the County Championships"

Lancashire is stopping Greater Manchester joining FACT!!!
I have try to bring this to the Lancashire AGM
http://www.lancashirechess.uk/images/pd ... 202016.pdf

I have try bringing this to the NCCU meeting
http://www.nccu.org.uk/wp/wp-content/up ... 110616.pdf


One person is stopping people like me playing county chess
Any postings on here represent my personal views only

Post Reply