2013 Final Stage

Discussion about all aspects of the ECF County Championships.
Richard Bates
Posts: 2545
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by Richard Bates » Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:46 am

Kevin Williamson wrote:I now see that two of the Minor Counties Quarter Finals have had their results adjusted by having similar penalties (to that given to Kent) applied. This current spate appears to be due to non-renewal of expiring 3-year memberships which terminate mid-season...
It appears to be the case that Alex H has, yesterday, been retrospectively going back and altering the results of previous matches, having previously not picked up on transgressions of this "rule" - the minor counties q/fs (Jonathan Rogers, for example, in the Essex match) mentioned by Kevin, Kent's(!) Open quarter-final as well as some other matches. All on the grounds of part-year memberships expiring. I would say that Kent have a pretty strong moral, if not legal, case for not being defaulted against Middlesex if their previous transgression wasn't advised as being so! (especially as their Q/F wasn't a unique 'oversight' by the Controller but was overlooked in general across a range of matches).

One wonders what on earth Alex would have done if one of these "missed" expired memberships had altered a match result...
Last edited by Richard Bates on Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16120
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:04 am

Richard Bates wrote: It appears to be the case that Alex H has, yesterday, been retrospectively going back and altering the results of previous matches, having previously not picked up on transgressions of this "rule"
If the ECF applied the rules that apply to other competitions to its own, none of this would be a problem, given that membership renewal backdates all games otherwise liable to Game Fee.

Is it claimed that Council members either implicitly or explicitly voted for this? In a way all those who supported membership did so as this type of rule enforcement is a natural consequence of compulsory membership.

Richard Bates
Posts: 2545
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by Richard Bates » Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:15 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Richard Bates wrote: It appears to be the case that Alex H has, yesterday, been retrospectively going back and altering the results of previous matches, having previously not picked up on transgressions of this "rule"
If the ECF applied the rules that apply to other competitions to its own, none of this would be a problem, given that membership renewal backdates all games otherwise liable to Game Fee.

Is it claimed that Council members either implicitly or explicitly voted for this? In a way all those who supported membership did so as this type of rule enforcement is a natural consequence of compulsory membership.
I think this might be termed "missing the tree for the woods"...

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16120
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:27 am

Richard Bates wrote: I think this might be termed "missing the tree for the woods"...
There are many reasons to oppose compulsory membership and the scope it gives to inflexible controllers to overrule OTB results is but one of them.

I was wondering how accurate the membership tracking was. I'm guessing that match captains are only finding that players haven't renewed when they input the results on the evening of the match. They then hurriedly renew so the renewal is on the same day of the match but after it took place.

What if they had checked their entire team on the morning of the match? Would a renewal or new membership at 1.59pm for a 2.00pm start make a player eligible, whilst making them a member at 8pm would fail?
Last edited by Roger de Coverly on Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16120
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:34 am

Richard Bates wrote: I would say that Kent have a pretty strong moral, if not legal, case for not being defaulted against Middlesex if their previous transgression wasn't advised as being so! (especially as their Q/F wasn't a unique 'oversight' by the Controller but was overlooked in general across a range of matches).
The initial quarter final interpretation of the membership rule was that players had to be members at the time of result submission and the semi finalists were determined on that basis. Presuming Middlesex were not kicking up a fuss, why would you change the interpretation mid competition?

John Hodgson
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:13 am

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by John Hodgson » Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:10 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:I was wondering how accurate the membership tracking was. I'm guessing that match captains are only finding that players haven't renewed when they input the results on the evening of the match. They then hurriedly renew so the renewal is on the same day of the match but after it took place.

What if they had checked their entire team on the morning of the match? Would a renewal or new membership at 1.59pm for a 2.00pm start make a player eligible, whilst making them a member at 8pm would fail?
It's also worth pointing out that the membership spreadsheet on the ECF website does not have an expiry date for all players (I am one). So presumably, for such players, a match captain is supposed to contact the ECF office in advance to have documentary evidence to support the legality of the team he is fielding.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16120
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:16 am

John Hodgson wrote:It's also worth pointing out that the membership spreadsheet on the ECF website does not have an expiry date for all players (I am one).
The spreadsheet column headed "due date" supposedly shows the expiry date for those members prior to 2012, although it's not showing the end of the month as was usually indicated on the old laminated cards.

John Hodgson
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:13 am

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by John Hodgson » Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:24 am

Alan Walton wrote:Unbelievable, the ECF set up a good grading database
, then their own officials never bother using it, enough said
Let's take a player who didn't have a grading in August 2012, but does have one in the January 2013 list.

Would you expect the controller
a) to use the 2013 published grade
b) to expect a match captain to submit all the player's results so that the controller can work out the player's grading.

You may expect a), but of course b) applies (lots of extra work for everyone).

Apologies if this has been covered before, but I couldn't find this exact case.

User avatar
Greg Breed
Posts: 714
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:30 am
Location: Harrow, Middx, UK
Contact:

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by Greg Breed » Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:25 am

John Hodgson wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote:I was wondering how accurate the membership tracking was. I'm guessing that match captains are only finding that players haven't renewed when they input the results on the evening of the match. They then hurriedly renew so the renewal is on the same day of the match but after it took place.

What if they had checked their entire team on the morning of the match? Would a renewal or new membership at 1.59pm for a 2.00pm start make a player eligible, whilst making them a member at 8pm would fail?
It's also worth pointing out that the membership spreadsheet on the ECF website does not have an expiry date for all players (I am one). So presumably, for such players, a match captain is supposed to contact the ECF office in advance to have documentary evidence to support the legality of the team he is fielding.
Is it any wonder there is a dearth of county captains?! Who wants this hassle? Seriously, as a Middlesex player (although not in this category) I find this a tragedy for Kent. If the player has had the membership renewed after the match then it is clear that it was an oversight and nothing deliberate. And as Richard Bates says, a financial penalty (if anything) would be more in keeping with the transgression than a sporting one as no advantage was gained by this.

I agree with everything said by others that there should be no penalty. If the ECF continue on this course it will alienate it's membership (further :?: :roll: ). As mentioned by Kevin Williamson those who have been most supportive by buying a 3-year membership should be given for free the summer period between the expiry of the old membership and the purchase of the new membership!
Hatch End A Captain (Hillingdon League)
Harrow Captain (Middlesex League)

John Hodgson
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:13 am

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by John Hodgson » Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:28 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
John Hodgson wrote:It's also worth pointing out that the membership spreadsheet on the ECF website does not have an expiry date for all players (I am one).
The spreadsheet column headed "due date" supposedly shows the expiry date for those members prior to 2012, although it's not showing the end of the month as was usually indicated on the old laminated cards.
Yes, you are right. I didn't realise there was another column not being displayed on my screen.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16120
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:43 am

John Hodgson wrote: You may expect a), but of course b) applies (lots of extra work for everyone).

Apologies if this has been covered before, but I couldn't find this exact case.
Here's the exact text
(b) A player who has no grade in the list current at the start of the season may play in the Final Stage only if permission has been previously obtained from the Controller. Requests for permission must be submitted to the Controller so as to arrive at least seven days before the player is due to play. The team captain must submit evidence from the local grader or master list or other source. Such a player shall be declared ineligible (or no longer eligible) if the Controller is not (or has ceased to be) entirely convinced that the player’s strength is clearly below the relevant grading limits. The Controller shall, as soon as practical, assign the player a grading for the purposes of the Championship only.
This is an example of writing a complex rule for the sake of it. Provided you can trust the existence of the January grading list, the rule has to say little more than that the January list establishes eligibility in the absence of a grade in the July list and that researching a player's results is only needed where there isn't a grade in either list. The Final stages don't start until April, so it isn't a question of grades becoming available halfway through the competition.

John Hodgson
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:13 am

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by John Hodgson » Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:18 am

"The team captain must submit evidence from the local grader or master list or other source."

Hopefully this rule will be rewritten. But even as it stands I can see no reason why the controller should not have just accepted the January 2013 grade. The rule includes "master list" and the words "or" rather than "and". There seems no obligation to include anything other than the January 2013 grade. The Essex match captain spent several hours gathering this grading evidence. Why?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16120
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:50 am

John Hodgson wrote: Hopefully this rule will be rewritten

This is what the SCCU rules say
A player with no current published grade may play in the grading-limited Competitions only with the prior permission of the County Match Controller. The team captain must, before applying for permission, satisfy himself that the player is not of such playing strength as to breach the limit set for the Competition in question, and must submit evidence, where this is available, from the local grader or master list or other source. The Controller will declare such a player ineligible (or no longer eligible) if he is not (or has ceased to be) entirely convinced that the player’s current playing strength is below the relevant grading limit.
This is relevant and sensible for a competition starting in September each year although the term "current published grade" could mean the January grades for matches after its publication.

For a competition starting in April, the relevant current published grade should logically be the January ones, but the previous July grade is also accepted, so you can have the same squad in both Union and national competitions.

Mick Norris
Posts: 6508
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by Mick Norris » Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:48 pm

Kevin Williamson wrote:I now see that two of the Minor Counties Quarter Finals have had their results adjusted by having similar penalties (to that given to Kent) applied
I hope at the County finals there will be some system of checking for ECF membership on the day, preferably before start of play
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16120
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: 2013 Final Stage

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:57 pm

Mick Norris wrote: I hope at the County finals there will be some system of checking for ECF membership on the day, preferably before start of play
It's not just membership. If you have a player with only a January 2013 grade, they aren't eligible to play without permission even in the Open.

Post Reply