2013 Final Stage

[John Swain]

My view (and I don't need to be forced to express it) is that Kent won over the 16 boards. In terms of the match itself... I don't know. I don't think I can get off the fence on this one. If required I'll play in Warwickshire although I won't be calling the match a final. Some people have strong views other ways. I shan't be criticising them for this.

Speaking as a neutral, I feel sorry not just for the captains and players of Middlesex and Kent, but another team that hasn't been mentioned so far - Surrey - who may well feel that they will be travelling to a "tarnished" Final (to paraphrase a comment from Peter Farr) for reasons completely outside of their control.

The situation is a shambles.

It is easy to be wise after the event, but it should have been obvious (to whoever devised the penalty) that the "punishment should fit the crime" and potentially reversing a match result for 32 players for the "crime" of one person not renewing membership on time is disproportionate, particularly when it appears that the ECF's own administrative system for membership is not beyond question.

It seems that some in the ECF are so obsessed by promoting a watertight membership scheme and plugging all conceivable loopholes in their membership system that they have lost sight of the bigger picture. There are parallels with the events in junior chess which led to Neill Cooper's resignation as ECF National Secondary Schools Coordinator .....

[Jonathan Rogers]

Jonathan

I fail to see the messy part of Anthony's answer. He was REPORTING a match result (NOT making a CHALLENGE to the match result) and some information wasn't available which the form asked to be submitted (which you refer to as 'the membership point'). As any good captain would do, when submitting an incomplete results form, you would give as much information as possible relating to the incomplete part. Why, exactly, would a captain consult their players when REPORTING a match result?
....

Hi Peter

I hesitate to pursue this since I am sincere in saying that the Middlesex captain was not to blame for this mess.

But if I were a Kent player I would read the following part of Anthony's answer with some puzzlement:

"[Alan Hanreck] assured that James was a member as far as he knew and was able to supply me with the missing Membership Number - this was confirmed by clicking onto ECF logo on the Online Results Service
6) Once I'm satisfied I have completed details I inform competition controller, ECF Office and SCCU webmaster and send appropriate paperwork. In this case although there is an online service I still continued with this policy. Consequently I advised Alex that I had updated Online Results Service and sent him a paper copy stating that I was unable to find James details on Membership list."

This seems to my eyes to mean "I had been given a membership number which seemed to be valid when I checked the ECF logo. But instead of just entering this number in the column on the match report and saying nothing further, I thought that I would point out to Alex H that I couldn't find the player on the latest list itself".

Maybe this is why we are still awaiting a comment from Kent?

[Rob Thompson]

This seems to my eyes to mean "I had been given a membership number which seemed to be valid when I checked the ECF logo. But instead of just entering this number in the column on the match report and saying nothing further, I thought that I would point out to Alex H that I couldn't find the player on the latest list itself".

This seems an entirely reasonable thing that someone who was an enthusiastic volunteer who wanted to help the ECF keep its paperwork in order may note almost as an aside. To my mind it read as meaning that the comment was made mainly to help the ECF's administration, rather than for any further reason.

[David Sedgwick]

But if I were a Kent player I would read the following part of Anthony's answer with some puzzlement:

"[Alan Hanreck] assured that James was a member as far as he knew and was able to supply me with the missing Membership Number - this was confirmed by clicking onto ECF logo on the Online Results Service
6) Once I'm satisfied I have completed details I inform competition controller, ECF Office and SCCU webmaster and send appropriate paperwork. In this case although there is an online service I still continued with this policy. Consequently I advised Alex that I had updated Online Results Service and sent him a paper copy stating that I was unable to find James details on Membership list."

This seems to my eyes to mean "I had been given a membership number which seemed to be valid when I checked the ECF logo. But instead of just entering this number in the column on the match report and saying nothing further, I thought that I would point out to Alex H that I couldn't find the player on the latest list itself".

I would have done the same, as those facts would have led me to suggest that there was something wrong with the list. After all, we have documented cases on this thread of people disappearing from the list when they renew.

Edit: I see that Rob Thompson has just made the same point.

[Roger de Coverly]

"[Alan Hanreck] assured that James was a member as far as he knew and was able to supply me with the missing Membership Number - this was confirmed by clicking onto ECF logo on the Online Results Service

When the competition started in April 2013, the player concerned had been a member under the 2011-12 rules and presumably also a member in the guarantor sense. What I don't totally understand is why the ECF think they can remove guarantor status from existing guarantors just because they have introduced a new category of non-guarantor membership. I wouldn't really want Kent to start a process of Lancs v GMan longevity on this, but there does seem scope for dispute on why the three month clause for cessation of membership doesn't apply. The ECF's reasoning seems a bit suspect unless existing guarantors are deemed to have given up guarantor status when they pay for a membership under the new rules. But then the player concerned hasn't paid for a new membership.

A controller more concerned about the sporting effect of his decisions would have drawn Kent's attention to the technical breach of the membership condition and suggested they did something about it promptly. Provided they did so, no penalties would be applied. Middlesex would still be in a position, should they wish, to formally object to the presence of a Kent player. I suspect that is what they would have to do if they suspected that a player was not eligible by virtue of being "bussed in" with no obvious Kent connection.

Another simple solution would be to rule that membership just meant membership at the start of the competition, in other words in April 2013. You've then just got the one frozen list with the odd new player added. Anyone never a member is automatically backdated to 1st September 2012 when they pay up.

[Jonathan Rogers]

This seems to my eyes to mean "I had been given a membership number which seemed to be valid when I checked the ECF logo. But instead of just entering this number in the column on the match report and saying nothing further, I thought that I would point out to Alex H that I couldn't find the player on the latest list itself".

This seems an entirely reasonable thing that someone who was an enthusiastic volunteer who wanted to help the ECF keep its paperwork in order may note almost as an aside. To my mind it read as meaning that the comment was made mainly to help the ECF's administration, rather than for any further reason.

It can be read in that way. But it can also be read in other ways, and to repeat a much earlier point, I wonder whether Alex H interpreted this "helpful adminstrative comment" as a "polite challenge", and I still wonder what Kent players make of it.

[Roger de Coverly]

I wonder whether Alex H interpreted this "helpful adminstrative comment" as a "polite challenge",

I though what the software was supposed to do was to flag players as non-members so that Alex H could default them. It was after all either him or Adam R who wrote the rule in the first place. We saw in the earlier round a penalty point being applied because a player not currently graded played in an open team.

It transpired that the results system wasn't totally working in the expected manner, to which the Middlesex captain had drawn attention by replication of its function by hand.

[David Sedgwick]

It can be read in that way. But it can also be read in other ways, and to repeat a much earlier point, I wonder whether Alex H interpreted this "helpful adminstrative comment" as a "polite challenge", and I still wonder what Kent players make of it.

People I've spoken to in Kent are upset and unhappy with the ECF and, to a lesser extent, with Middlesex. I suspect they can do without being harangued to comment on this Forum.

A week before the match took place, I had submitted "To consider the conduct of the ECF Counties Championships 2012-13" as an item for consideration at the SCCU Annual Council Meeting on Saturday 6th July.

That has proved to be prescient.

[Sean Hewitt]

Without wishing to comment on the merits or otherwise of the rule in question, I do note that in the FA Cup, teams get thrown out on a reasonably frequent basis for fielding ineligible players - almost always through some admin cock up like failing to register a particular form. Harsh though that is, people know and accept that that's the rule.

[Roger de Coverly]

he may take the view that the rules relating to ECF events are not having the desired outcome.

But what do you think is the desired outcome? Expressed as a power grab, to give ECF Officials more control and influence, it seems to be working entirely to specification.

Harsh though that is, people know and accept that that's the rule.

[Richard Bates]

When the competition started in April 2013, the player concerned had been a member under the 2011-12 rules and presumably also a member in the guarantor sense. What I don't totally understand is why the ECF think they can remove guarantor status from existing guarantors just because they have introduced a new category of non-guarantor membership. I wouldn't really want Kent to start a process of Lancs v GMan longevity on this, but there does seem scope for dispute on why the three month clause for cessation of membership doesn't apply. The ECF's reasoning seems a bit suspect unless existing guarantors are deemed to have given up guarantor status when they pay for a membership under the new rules. But then the player concerned hasn't paid for a new membership.

Having just glanced at the ECF articles of association thinking naively that this must be all fairly straightforward, I must say i admire anyone who can with certainty say what the word 'member' means within their context, and when such membership is deemed to officially expire. Especially in relation to individuals still within the transitional period of their membership having been purchased prior to the introduction of the new arrangements. I've got a headache.

Of course this specific issue is something which could possibly have ONLY occurred this year (assuming there aren't still some 3 yr memberships due to expire next year), which is one reason why one might have thought some leniency could have been found without setting undesirable precedents.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Without wishing to comment on the merits or otherwise of the rule in question, I do note that in the FA Cup, teams get thrown out on a reasonably frequent basis for fielding ineligible players - almost always through some admin cock up like failing to register a particular form. Harsh though that is, people know and accept that that's the rule.

I suppose that some differences might be that

1 at least the rules are presumably clearly recognised as such in the FA - by contrast I think it is still unclear to what extent ECF council approved the penalty for this particular breach

2 many/most football clubs are supposed to be professionally run, and moreover it is all presumably all down to one person in the club to comply with all the form filling. Surely your average footballer isn't actually required to do anything in person. Here, it is down to each chess player to register himself, with the captain having to rely on often out of date information from the ECF website. And heaven knows, even the great and the good can be a little late to renew

Actually we have surely said many times before that it is unhelpful to compare English team chess with English football?

[Jonathan Rogers]

...
A week before the match took place, I had submitted "To consider the conduct of the ECF Counties Championships 2012-13" as an item for consideration at the SCCU Annual Council Meeting on Saturday 6th July.

That has proved to be prescient.

You might want to push it further up the agenda now

[PeterFarr]

Completely agree with Jonathan. Also I don't recall a team in the FA Cup being kicked out in the late stages. I can't imagine the ensuing storm if Man U were kicked out after winning a semi-final.

Don't agree with R de C's power grab comment though - its surely cock- up / unintended consequences

[Mick Norris]

Actually we have surely said many times before that it is unhelpful to compare English team chess with English football?

Agree with that - the FA kicked Bury out of the cup after winning a game, but had failed to do the same to West Ham (Tevez saga) - not got over it yet