Re: 2014 Final stages
Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:52 pm
To be fair to Alex, I doubt he would have an objection to codifying the convention to keep 1st and 2nd teams apart. His point (and he is right) is that it's not in the rules.
The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
https://www.ecforum.org.uk/
Alex has pointed this out on a number of occasions; indeed in this thread yet again. This matter cannot be pursued and your post succinctly summarised the situation.Sean Hewitt wrote:To be fair to Alex, I doubt he would have an objection to codifying the convention to keep 1st and 2nd teams apart. His point (and he is right) is that it's not in the rules.
It can easily be pursued. If Nottinghamshire want to propose such a rule change, I'm sure Leicestershire would second it.Neil Graham wrote:Alex has pointed this out on a number of occasions; indeed in this thread yet again. This matter cannot be pursued and your post succinctly summarised the situation.Sean Hewitt wrote:To be fair to Alex, I doubt he would have an objection to codifying the convention to keep 1st and 2nd teams apart. His point (and he is right) is that it's not in the rules.
Notts will do so at ECF Council in the Autumn if agreed in meetingSean Hewitt wrote:It can easily be pursued. If Nottinghamshire want to propose such a rule change, I'm sure Leicestershire would second it.Neil Graham wrote:Alex has pointed this out on a number of occasions; indeed in this thread yet again. This matter cannot be pursued and your post succinctly summarised the situation.Sean Hewitt wrote:To be fair to Alex, I doubt he would have an objection to codifying the convention to keep 1st and 2nd teams apart. His point (and he is right) is that it's not in the rules.
This does seem rather sad. If my team ever won its union section I would be upset not to have a chance to play in the open national stages. It has been said before that teams do not enter because they feel they are not good enough. That's a bit like 14 of the Premier League football teams deciding they would rather play in the Championship because they can not compete with Chelsea, Manchester City, etc. When did the result become more important than taking part?MartinCarpenter wrote: Being down to 6 teams in the open competition is sad and definitely rather worse than all of this
I think Premiership/Championship analogies can be broken quite rapidly. A football club promoted to the Premiership would usually attempt to strengthen its squad. While financial constraints and existing contracts will be important, that's as far as it goes as something to prevent them. Similarly a chess team promoted from 4NCL division 2 to division 1 or from division 3 to division 2 is limited only by connections, goodwill and finance in attempting to strengthen the squad.Graham Borrowdale wrote:. It has been said before that teams do not enter because they feel they are not good enough. That's a bit like 14 of the Premier League football teams deciding they would rather play in the Championship because they can not compete with Chelsea, Manchester City, etc.
Nottinghamshire play Kent in the U100 at the OU on 17th May.Ian Wallis wrote:{quote="Neil Graham"}
Secondly once arrangements have been agreed between the two captains on date/venue can they be shown on the website as well? In my case I have to await a preliminary match in the Minor Counties event to ascertain my quarter-final opponent which gives a mere three weeks to sort out and agree a venue with whichever team wins. It could be that another team is already playing at an intermediate venue which we could share.{/quote}
{quote="IM Jack Rudd"}
We're playing Suffolk on the Sunday in Milton Keynes; a share might be plausible if Hampshire wins the preliminary.{/quote}
Jack is referring to the Open University in Milton Keynes.
I was told, when I made enquiries about this venue with the Bedfordshire county captain, that Nottinghamshire had already booked for two matches on Saturday 17 May.
I do not know if there would be sufficient space for three matches on this booking, however, as Jack has suggested, this would not be a problem if you wanted to play Sunday. I am sure Somerset and Suffolk would not mind if you wanted to share providing you coincided with the scheduled start of 13:00.
PM me if you need contact details.
Tuesday, 15th July @ 2000, by Skype. Announced to Union Representatives; will appear on the ECF website on Monday, hopefully.Alex Holowczak wrote:I intend to discuss this with the Unions
Obviously the fact that there wouldn't be a third SCCU nomination wasn't known until the last minute. Although the rules do allow the controller to alter the pairings the slightly lopsided draw seemed preferable to ripping up the whole thing and starting again.MartinCarpenter wrote:Suppose while we're at it I may as well point out the U180 draw too - it was always a bit odd but now that S3 has declined to enter, it really does look gently perverse
2 SCCU and 2 NCCU teams and they're all in the same half of the Q final draw? I guess probably the top 4 teams too, with the other two getting semi final byes. Oh well.
Being down to 6 teams in the open competition is sad and definitely rather worse than all of this
Which begs the fundamental question - why do the draw before the nominations are confirmed?Andrew Zigmond wrote:Obviously the fact that there wouldn't be a third SCCU nomination wasn't known until the last minute. Although the rules do allow the controller to alter the pairings the slightly lopsided draw seemed preferable to ripping up the whole thing and starting again.
The same question was asked on an earlier thread and we were told that’s what the Unions wanted.Sean Hewitt wrote:Which begs the fundamental question - why do the draw before the nominations are confirmed?Andrew Zigmond wrote:Obviously the fact that there wouldn't be a third SCCU nomination wasn't known until the last minute. Although the rules do allow the controller to alter the pairings the slightly lopsided draw seemed preferable to ripping up the whole thing and starting again.
That's not entirely true. The Union is charged in the first instance - they are then free to hold an individual county accountable should they feel it's appropriate.Kevin Williamson wrote: If individual Counties later decide they don’t wish to play the Union has to pick up the £100 fine.
Then perhaps the question is better phrased as "why do the Unions want it?"Kevin Williamson wrote:The same question was asked on an earlier thread and we were told that’s what the Unions wanted.Sean Hewitt wrote:Which begs the fundamental question - why do the draw before the nominations are confirmed?Andrew Zigmond wrote:Obviously the fact that there wouldn't be a third SCCU nomination wasn't known until the last minute. Although the rules do allow the controller to alter the pairings the slightly lopsided draw seemed preferable to ripping up the whole thing and starting again.