2013 Final Stage

[Roger de Coverly]

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.

The problem will be back next year and in 2015. A number of well known players have three year memberships from 2011 and 2012 expiring in the summer months. It was about this time last year that the old three year anniversary memberships were withdrawn.

[Richard Bates]

And heaven knows, even the great and the good can be a little late to renew

Technical question - when you get round to renewing your membership, i assume that the effect will be to backdate it to when your previous membership expired (in future it will be backdated to the start of the year)? This will therefore cover both the final 4NCL weekend and your Essex Q/f appearance. Therefore by definition won't you have retrospectively become a member for that period, meaning that you can (retrospectively) claim to have fulfilled the County Championship rules? Requiring another (retrospective) adjustment to the Essex Q/F match score?

[Jonathan Rogers]

And heaven knows, even the great and the good can be a little late to renew

Technical question - when you get round to renewing your membership, i assume that the effect will be to backdate it to when your previous membership expired (in future it will be backdated to the start of the year)? This will therefore cover both the final 4NCL weekend and your Essex Q/f appearance. Therefore by definition won't you have retrospectively become a member for that period, meaning that you can (retrospectively) claim to have fulfilled the County Championship rules? Requiring another (retrospective) adjustment to the Essex Q/F match score?

I dunno, but suggest it to Mr Scholes!

[John Swain]

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.

Surely, as part of a unanimous three-judge panel of appeal, you have already commented on "the merits or otherwise of the rule in question"?

"The Committee recommends that the Director should consider whether result altering penalties are desirable in cases such as this and, if not, alternatives should be considered for future seasons."

[Sean Hewitt]

Surely, as part of a unanimous three-judge panel of appeal, you have already commented on "the merits or otherwise of the rule in question"?

"The Committee recommends that the Director should consider whether result altering penalties are desirable in cases such as this and, if not, alternatives should be considered for future seasons."

Perhaps you've misunderstood what we've said. We recommended that the Director considers whether in future such a penalty is desirable. We offered no opinion whatsoever as to whether it was desirable or not.

[Jonathan Rogers]

oh come on!

[John Swain]

Surely, as part of a unanimous three-judge panel of appeal, you have already commented on "the merits or otherwise of the rule in question"?

"The Committee recommends that the Director should consider whether result altering penalties are desirable in cases such as this and, if not, alternatives should be considered for future seasons."

Perhaps you've misunderstood what we've said. We recommended that the Director considers whether in future such a penalty is desirable. We offered no opinion whatsoever as to whether it was desirable or not.

I am obviously not the only one to read the Committee's recommendation as implied criticism, or at least the need for a re-think (see Jonathan Rogers' subsequent comment).

If all three of you backed the strategy, why say anything? Why ask "whether in future such a penalty is desirable"? Or is this an attempt at clever politics, appearing to placate Kent (and others) in public but in private expecting the status quo to continue?

[Roger de Coverly]

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.

Depending on the outcome of that discussion, presumably putting the same item to the ECF AGM is under consideration.

[Sean Hewitt]

I am obviously not the only one to read the Committee's recommendation as implied criticism, or at least the need for a re-think (see Jonathan Rogers' subsequent comment).

Whilst you may not be alone in being wrong, that still makes you wrong.

If all three of you backed the strategy, why say anything? Why ask "whether in future such a penalty is desirable"? Or is this an attempt at clever politics, appearing to placate Kent (and others) in public but in private expecting the status quo to continue?

It's quite simple. We are suggesting that the Director considers whether this type of consequence is desirable, or whether it was unintended. I do not know the answer to that question, but is it not prudent to review ones position in the light of experience?

[Roger de Coverly]

I do not know the answer to that question

I'm quite amazed by that. You are a major advocate of membership which when compulsory quite obviously increases the chance that a player will be deemed ineligible through non-membership or non-renewal. You don't have a view on whether this is a desirable outcome. By contrast, I have a very strong view on this that such match changing penalties are a by-product of a compulsory membership system as the ECF are demonstrating with the Counties Championship.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I am obviously not the only one to read the Committee's recommendation as implied criticism, or at least the need for a re-think (see Jonathan Rogers' subsequent comment).

Whilst you may not be alone in being wrong, that still makes you wrong.

If we really are wrong, it is because of your wording. "P should consider whether x is desirable in cases such as this" is classic political (and legal) speak for "you've ballsed up!", in much the same way that "I cannot at this moment in time imagine any circumstances in which I would challenge the party leader" is classic political talk for "I'm ready and waiting".

This, combined with the fact that obviously there has been a hugely damaging balls-up ....

[John Swain]

I am obviously not the only one to read the Committee's recommendation as implied criticism, or at least the need for a re-think (see Jonathan Rogers' subsequent comment).

Whilst you may not be alone in being wrong, that still makes you wrong.

If all three of you backed the strategy, why say anything? Why ask "whether in future such a penalty is desirable"? Or is this an attempt at clever politics, appearing to placate Kent (and others) in public but in private expecting the status quo to continue?

It's quite simple. We are suggesting that the Director considers whether this type of consequence is desirable, or whether it was unintended. I do not know the answer to that question, but is it not prudent to review ones position in the light of experience?

It is certainly prudent to review "one's position in the light of experience" and it is to be hoped that if a Controller for the Counties Championship can be found for 2013-14, such a review will take place with the guidance of other ECF officials, the Board or Council, and the current strategy will be altered.

I have enjoyed playing in the Notts U180 team for a few years now, following several years of county-team inactivity whilst my daughter was growing up, but I see little point in giving up most of a Saturday driving from Nottingham to Milton Keynes, Peterborough or wherever, for the whole match result to be reversed by the Monday due to some technicality. I am sure I am not alone in this view.

I do not believe that I am wrong (or Jonathan Rogers is wrong either) in relation to your first point.

There is a danger that the Committee's unanimous recommendations are being undermined by your unilateral pronouncements. Your willingness to engage in debate on the Forum is appreciated, but maybe you need to consult with other Committee members before responding further, if at all?

[John Philpott]

Mick Norris wrote

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

A discussion of Tevezgate on this particular thread would seem to be rather off topic. However do not forget "Mannygate" in 1999 when West Ham were forced to replay their Worthington Cup quarter final against Aston Villa as a result of a brief substitute appearance in extra time by Manny Omoyinmi who had played in an earlier round of the competition while on loan at Gillingham. This was the result of a "clerical error" for which company secretary Graham Mackrell and football secretary Alison Dowd accepted responsibility and resigned, although I always thought that the player concerned might have said something.

At least the original match (needless to say West Ham lost the replay) provided me with one of my all time favourite football moments: cheering Gareth Southgate along with the rest of the home crowd as he made his way to the penalty area for the shoot-out with absolute confidence that he was going to miss.

[John Philpott]

John Swain wrote:

I have enjoyed playing in the Notts U180 team for a few years now, following several years of county-team inactivity whilst my daughter was growing up, but I see little point in giving up most of a Saturday driving from Nottingham to Milton Keynes, Peterborough or wherever, for the whole match result to be reversed by the Monday due to some technicality.

I would be very surprised if a Notts team captained by Neil Graham were to fall foul of the rules.

[Roger de Coverly]

such a review will take place with the guidance of other ECF officials, the Board or Council, and the current strategy will be altered.

I would have though a series of measures to reduce the involvement of the Controller.

In the Open, anyone can play, and board order challenges have to be made by the offended county before the match starts.

In the grade restricted sections, eligibility is determined by grade in either the January or the July list and only players ungraded in both have to be cleared. (This actually extends the number of people potentially eligible to play) You would need a rule for checking the under 180 average requirement for the Minor Counties.

Financially, the entry fee is £ x per team plus £ y per player per match who isn't an ECF member or is an expired one.