Motions

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18344
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Motions

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:20 am

Alan Walton wrote: We have found from our archives in the MCF these documents showing the BCF indeed removed dual eligibility, see point 4iv
It says that GM would have the same status as, say, Merseyside. But what's that eligibility and does the lack of Merseyside Open team make a difference?

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1743
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Motions

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:24 am

Alan Walton wrote: The recent occurrence in the county finals was decided by the chief arbiter saying dual eligibility has never been reversed since the formation of Greater Manchester
Please could you clarify who the `chief arbiter` is in the context of this post.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Alan Walton
Posts: 1258
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: Motions

Post by Alan Walton » Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:25 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Alan Walton wrote: We have found from our archives in the MCF these documents showing the BCF indeed removed dual eligibility, see point 4iv
It says that GM would have the same status as, say, Merseyside. But what's that eligibility and does the lack of Merseyside Open team make a difference?
It also says dual eligibility ceases, I am presuming back then Merseyside themselves didn't have dual eligibility; if they have brought it in since then this is a different matter, since GM have never agreed to this themselves

Not having a team doesn't matter, the rules don't say anything about this just conform to the eligibility criteria as currently stated; if a player from Merseyside wants to play for Lanchasire (or Cheshire) then he just have to fulfil the criteria
Last edited by Alan Walton on Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Alan Walton
Posts: 1258
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: Motions

Post by Alan Walton » Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:26 am

Andrew Zigmond wrote:
Alan Walton wrote: The recent occurrence in the county finals was decided by the chief arbiter saying dual eligibility has never been reversed since the formation of Greater Manchester
Please could you clarify who the `chief arbiter` is in the context of this post.
Alex H, I believe he was chief arbiter for the weekend

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1743
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Motions

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:21 pm

Alan Walton wrote:
Andrew Zigmond wrote:
Alan Walton wrote: The recent occurrence in the county finals was decided by the chief arbiter saying dual eligibility has never been reversed since the formation of Greater Manchester
Please could you clarify who the `chief arbiter` is in the context of this post.
Alex H, I believe he was chief arbiter for the weekend
Alex is the Director of Home Chess and largely takes care of the arrangements for finals day. It's not entirely accurate to refer to him as the `chief arbiter for the weekend`. The ECF Chief Arbiter (currently Lara Barnes) does have a standing within the county championships which is why I sought clarification.

For the sake of accuracy I understand that you were the one who initially flagged the question, at which one point one person contacted me and the other contacted Alex (as neither contribute to this forum I shan't name them). I believe Alex answered the question in his capacity as Home Director and I strongly suspect that he was answering a query rather than making a formal ruling (I couldn't have got involved due to the conflict of interest). If there was a formal ruling (which I doubt) it was not appealed.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Alan Walton
Posts: 1258
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: Motions

Post by Alan Walton » Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:27 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote:
Alan Walton wrote:
Andrew Zigmond wrote:
Please could you clarify who the `chief arbiter` is in the context of this post.
Alex H, I believe he was chief arbiter for the weekend
Alex is the Director of Home Chess and largely takes care of the arrangements for finals day. It's not entirely accurate to refer to him as the `chief arbiter for the weekend`. The ECF Chief Arbiter (currently Lara Barnes) does have a standing within the county championships which is why I sought clarification.

For the sake of accuracy I understand that you were the one who initially flagged the question, at which one point one person contacted me and the other contacted Alex (as neither contribute to this forum I shan't name them). I believe Alex answered the question in his capacity as Home Director and I strongly suspect that he was answering a query rather than making a formal ruling (I couldn't have got involved due to the conflict of interest). If there was a formal ruling (which I doubt) it was not appealed.
All I am saying is that the ruling was dual eligibility existed, and no documentation stated otherwise; by the looks of this it is incorrect

I presume it was a formal ruling coming directly from somebody within the ECF, and what is the point of appealing this one day before the event; after the case would have been a bit pointless, and this new evidence only came to light a month later

The motion John is raising to just to make sure there is a even playing field within ECF competitions

John Reyes
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:51 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Motions

Post by John Reyes » Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:26 pm

Alan Walton wrote:
Andrew Zigmond wrote:
Alan Walton wrote:
Alex H, I believe he was chief arbiter for the weekend
Alex is the Director of Home Chess and largely takes care of the arrangements for finals day. It's not entirely accurate to refer to him as the `chief arbiter for the weekend`. The ECF Chief Arbiter (currently Lara Barnes) does have a standing within the county championships which is why I sought clarification.

For the sake of accuracy I understand that you were the one who initially flagged the question, at which one point one person contacted me and the other contacted Alex (as neither contribute to this forum I shan't name them). I believe Alex answered the question in his capacity as Home Director and I strongly suspect that he was answering a query rather than making a formal ruling (I couldn't have got involved due to the conflict of interest). If there was a formal ruling (which I doubt) it was not appealed.
All I am saying is that the ruling was dual eligibility existed, and no documentation stated otherwise; by the looks of this it is incorrect

I presume it was a formal ruling coming directly from somebody within the ECF, and what is the point of appealing this one day before the event; after the case would have been a bit pointless, and this new evidence only came to light a month later

The motion John is raising to just to make sure there is a even playing field within ECF competitions
Alan has hit the bullseye!! I always want a even playing field, and I hope that this motions will be supported at a ECF level!!
Any postings on here represent my personal views only

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1743
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Motions

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:47 pm

John Reyes wrote: Alan has hit the bullseye!! I always want a even playing field, and I hope that this motions will be supported at a ECF level!!
But what is the actual wording of the motion? Eligibility for the county championships is determined by rule c1.3 and all the controller can rule on is whether a violation of that rule has occurred. An appeals panel then either upholds the controller's interpretation or rejects it. In this particular instance the application of the rule hinges on what might be written in forty years worth of legal documents.

I should add that I have no fixed opinions here and I'm simply trying to play devil's advocate.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Alan Walton
Posts: 1258
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: Motions

Post by Alan Walton » Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:58 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote:
John Reyes wrote: Alan has hit the bullseye!! I always want a even playing field, and I hope that this motions will be supported at a ECF level!!
But what is the actual wording of the motion? Eligibility for the county championships is determined by rule c1.3 and all the controller can rule on is whether a violation of that rule has occurred. An appeals panel then either upholds the controller's interpretation or rejects it. In this particular instance the application of the rule hinges on what might be written in forty years worth of legal documents.

I should add that I have no fixed opinions here and I'm simply trying to play devil's advocate.
Andrew, you have a totally valid point here; I personally don't think there is anything wrong with the current rules, it comes down to the interpretation of the dual eligibility and whether this actually still remains

GMan says it doesn't; the ECF ruling for the final say's it does; so it needs total clarification

If dual eligibility is allowed then really it should be clearly worded in the current rules as an exemption with all counties affected from the 1970s boundary changes, and not just Greater Manchester and Lancashire

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18344
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Motions

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:08 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote: Eligibility for the county championships is determined by rule c1.3 and all the controller can rule on is whether a violation of that rule has occurred.
Presumably the link below is the latest set of rules
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/competit ... hips-2016/

(C3.1 presumably)
C3.1. A player is eligible to represent a County in the Championship if the player meets one of the following criteria:

(i) Birth in that county.

(ii) Five years’ residence in that county at any time.

(iii) Two months immediate previous and present membership of a club either in or affiliated to that County.

(iv) One month’s immediately previous and present residence in that County.

(v) Present attendance as a student at a school, college or university in that County.
By mentioning birth and past residence, the rules are unclear about what happens when county boundaries change.

Earlier a "county " is defined as
Reference in these rules to counties shall be construed as applying to counties admitted to membership in accordance with Article 5.2 of the ECF Articles.
Article 5.2 says
(2) “County Associations” being such chess organisations representative of chess within statutory or otherwise customarily accepted county areas as shall be admitted by the Council to membership under this Article 5(2).
In the SCCU area, it's never been much of an issue, but most county associations would regard themselves as following the historic boundaries of 1974 with a little bit of a clean up in defining which London Boroughs fit where.

Presumably there are clubs that play in both Lancashire based and Greater Manchester based leagues. Anyone deemed to be a member of such a club would have dual eligibility.

Mike Gunn
Posts: 703
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm

Re: Motions

Post by Mike Gunn » Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:19 pm

You could phrase a motion "That it is the opinion of ECF Council that ...".

Passing such a motion would not necessarily bind the Director of Home Chess (who is responsible for County Chess rules) but he would be brave/foolish to ignore it.

Mike Gunn, Chairman of Council.

Alan Walton
Posts: 1258
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: Motions

Post by Alan Walton » Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:21 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:Presumably there are clubs that play in both Lancashire based and Greater Manchester based leagues. Anyone deemed to be a member of such a club would have dual eligibility.
You are correct, the only clubs based within the Greater Manchester boundaries affilated to Lancashire are Heywood, Rochdale, Urmston, Atherton and Tameside Juniors; with Heywood, Rochdale and Urmston currently playing in the MCF

Mike Gunn
Posts: 703
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm

Re: Motions

Post by Mike Gunn » Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:28 pm

To take just one of the eligibility criteria my interpretation is that someone born in the relevant area could take this to make them eligible to play for either Greater Manchester or Lancashire. (I can't see it could logically mean anything else?) This situation presumably doesn't apply elsewhere in England?

Alan Walton
Posts: 1258
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: Motions

Post by Alan Walton » Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:36 pm

Mike Gunn wrote:To take just one of the eligibility criteria my interpretation is that someone born in the relevant area could take this to make them eligible to play for either Greater Manchester or Lancashire. (I can't see it could logically mean anything else?) This situation presumably doesn't apply elsewhere in England?
You could infer that, but it isn't the case; from the document I posted if you were born in Greater Manchester after 1st Jan 1987, you are only eligible for the county you are born in which is Greater Manchester; towns like Oldham, Stockport, Bolton, Wigan and Manchester itself are actually not in Lancashire anymore after the changes in 1973

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1873
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Motions

Post by Michael Farthing » Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:49 pm

On the basis of the rule just quoted my strong advice to John is that it is far too late in the day to attempt to bring forward a motion that will robustly settle this issue and I believe if a motion is brought forward it is likely to be defeated on the basis of lack of robustness. To be robust it would have to address all the issues of what is meant by a county and how its boundaries change with time. It will need to distinguish between pre and post-1974 counties, ceremonial counties, administrative counties and ex-administrative (metropolitan) counties still considered by some to have an entity in limited circumstances. There will be problems of defining what (if any) county a unitary authority that is not a metropolitan borough should belong to.
The only crumb of comfort is that the Post Office has abolished postal counties so at least those will be out of the frame (or will they? there'll be members somewhere that will want to use historic postal counties). Alternatively, it will need to go for independence and affirm that a county in this context means a defined geographical area specified by the ECF for the purposes of this competition and such definition will need to be made, presumably by a committee set up for the purpose. And at the end of this process all those areas that feel they have been betrayed will either vote against the motion or feel permanently aggrieved afterwards, or both.

The motion will also, of course, be seen as an attack on the internal affairs of a constituent member which will not help tempers. So, of course, a committee will be required within each of the unions and before these can begin work a central committee will need to draw the union boundaries or there will be duplications and absences of coverage.

John (and Lancashire officials) know well that I am an advocate of accommodation with Greater Manchester: raising this issue as a one off aspect will do nothing to help that process.

Like it or not this is a local quarrel that will only satisfactorily be solved by local negotiation. I have every hope that this can be achieved before 2174 but in all probability will become a non-issue when 4NCL has completely displaced the C.C.C.
Rejoiner

Post Reply