Motions

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
NickFaulks
Posts: 5433
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Motions

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:31 am

Adam Raoof wrote:If we abandoned all eligibility requirements, what is the worst that can happen?
I like playing for Surrey because I feel some vague affinity with the county. If it became just a brand name, and furthermore I expected that come the final stages I would be dropped in favour of a hired gun brought in from elsewhere, I don't expect I would bother.

User avatar
Adam Raoof
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:16 pm
Location: NW4 4UY
Contact:

Re: Motions

Post by Adam Raoof » Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:36 am

Agreed. I can certainly see the potentially demotivating effect of a very strong club repeatedly winning a competition...

However, if the problem is having strong teams, then what is the point of competition? You need to motivate all the other teams to raise their game by some creative means, not by hamstringing the best clubs. Maybe you can have a maximum average grading requirement. Maybe you could make the first prize a trophy and the second prize lots of cash?
Adam Raoof IA, IO
Chessable - http://www.chessable.com
-Tell your friends about the Chess England Online Home Page - https://bit.ly/chessenglandonline
Don’t stop playing chess!

Graham Borrowdale
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:54 pm

Re: Motions

Post by Graham Borrowdale » Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:02 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Adam Raoof wrote:If we abandoned all eligibility requirements, what is the worst that can happen?
I like playing for Surrey because I feel some vague affinity with the county. If it became just a brand name, and furthermore I expected that come the final stages I would be dropped in favour of a hired gun brought in from elsewhere, I don't expect I would bother.
I agree with Nick here, but of course the drafting in of stronger players for the final stages already happens, albeit they are usually hired guns with some affinity to the county.

I know I have said it before, but 4NCL and county chess are serving different markets, in terms of the demographics of the competing players. Players unable/unwilling to devote whole weekends to chess can still get their fix on a single Saturday or Sunday. If county chess were to be subsumed into some enlarged 4NCL those players would not be accommodated.

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1235
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Motions

Post by Michael Flatt » Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:08 pm

What was the specific dispute that occurred in the match?

Did one team complain that their opponents had fielded an ineligible player?
or
Did a third team, not involved in the match, complain that they have been denied the use of a player in their own match because he (or she) elected to play for a competing team?

In any case, the existing rules allow the question to be raised with the competition controller and for it to go through the ECF Appeal Procedure.

Once the dispute has been ruled upon and the appeal heard, that's it!

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

Re: Motions

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:36 pm

Michael Flatt wrote:What was the specific dispute that occurred in the match?

Did one team complain that their opponents had fielded an ineligible player?

If it was the Counties Final, there were voices that Lancashire included a handful of Greater Manchester players in their winning team against Yorkshire. 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.

More than forty years after it started, the ban on Greater Manchester joining the NCCU continues, but the other side of the dispute, namely eligibility for Lancashire county teams also rumbles on.

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

Re: Motions

Post by Alan Walton » Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:44 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Michael Flatt wrote:More than forty years after it started, the ban on Greater Manchester joining the NCCU continues, but the other side of the dispute, namely eligibility for Lancashire county teams also rumbles on.
Roger, there is no ban on us joining the NCCU, it is just than certain elements within the NCCU (namely Lancashire) don't want us there and hence keep voting against our entry

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1235
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Motions

Post by Michael Flatt » Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:58 pm

Did Greater Manchester actually field an Open team in the (MCCU) County Championships this season?

Did any of the alleged ineligible players actually play in the GM Open team this season?

(In the post immediately above I am credited with something I did not post)

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

Re: Motions

Post by Alan Walton » Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:01 pm

Michael Flatt wrote:Did Greater Manchester actually field an Open team in the (MCCU) County Championships this season?

Did any of the alleged ineligible players actually play in the GM Open team this season?
No on both counts, but as previously said eligibility still stands if a team another team enters or not; just because Greater Manchester didn't enter I cannot go and play for Cornwall for example; the whole arguement on this one is whether Lancashire have a dual eligibility clause

I play decide to register with an affiliated club in Yorkshire (Bradford and play for them regularly) to qualify for them

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1235
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Motions

Post by Michael Flatt » Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:31 pm

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.

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

Re: Motions

Post by Alan Walton » Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:48 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.
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

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1235
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Motions

Post by Michael Flatt » Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:56 pm

Competition have a dispute and appeal procedure, which deals with these matters.

It is in the nature of disputes that one (or sometimes both) of the two parties in dispute will not agree with the ruling that has been made.

User avatar
Adam Raoof
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:16 pm
Location: NW4 4UY
Contact:

Re: Motions

Post by Adam Raoof » Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:56 pm

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?
Adam Raoof IA, IO
Chessable - http://www.chessable.com
-Tell your friends about the Chess England Online Home Page - https://bit.ly/chessenglandonline
Don’t stop playing chess!

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2465
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Motions

Post by MartinCarpenter » Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:59 pm

In the name surely :)

User avatar
Adam Raoof
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:16 pm
Location: NW4 4UY
Contact:

Re: Motions

Post by Adam Raoof » Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:00 pm

MartinCarpenter wrote:In the name surely :)
Not exactly - I represent a county that doesn't actually exist!
Adam Raoof IA, IO
Chessable - http://www.chessable.com
-Tell your friends about the Chess England Online Home Page - https://bit.ly/chessenglandonline
Don’t stop playing chess!

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

Re: Motions

Post by Alan Walton » Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:05 pm

Michael Flatt wrote:Competition have a dispute and appeal procedure, which deals with these matters.

It is in the nature of disputes that one (or sometimes both) of the two parties in dispute will not agree with the ruling that has been made.
Any appeal before the match would have likely resulted in the final not being played as I suspect it would have took more than 48 hours to resolve; any dispute after would have changed the result which wouldn't have been ideal; it was up to Yorkshire to submit an appeal, since then Manchester themselves have found evidence saying the actually ruling made could be incorrect, but this evidence was found over a month after the final was played; but the discussions are to make sure rules are applied equally in the future, and this occurrence doesn't occur again

Post Reply