English Chess Forum

The rules this year stated that the Unions must specify to the Controller the number of nominations it wishes to make for each section of the Final Stages in December. Did this occur this year?

The draw for the final stages could then be made as early as January. The nominations of who fills each slot is immaterial if we know how many nominees there are.

Nottinghamshire certainly told the MCCU Union Controller in the specified time frame that we would take up any place in the Final stages where we had qualified.

Unions can hardly be blamed if a county says "I want to play" in December then in March changes it's mind. Did Unions actually ask counties if they wished to be nominated if they finished up in a qualifying spot?

Neil Graham wrote:The rules this year stated that the Unions must specify to the Controller the number of nominations it wishes to make for each section of the Final Stages in December. Did this occur this year?

The draw for the final stages could then be made as early as January. The nominations of who fills each slot is immaterial if we know how many nominees there are.

Nottinghamshire certainly told the MCCU Union Controller in the specified time frame that we would take up any place in the Final stages where we had qualified.

Unions can hardly be blamed if a county says "I want to play" in December then in March changes it's mind. Did Unions actually ask counties if they wished to be nominated if they finished up in a qualifying spot?

Rule D1.2 specifies that the controller will contact the Unions to request their number of nominations in December. It stops short of imposing a 31st December deadline. The draw was done in February as per rule D2.3 and the date of the draw was specified well in advance, again in accordance with D2.3.

With regard to your final question how the Unions consult with their counties is a solely a matter for the individual union. As far as I'm aware none of the five Union controllers are contributors to this forum.

The rules of the competition are the responsibility of the Home Director in conjunction with Council. All I can do as Controller is act within these parameters as best I can. Council exists as the mechanism for changing the rules.

Neil Graham wrote:
Firstly can a list of "cleared" players under C1.2(b) be shown on the ECF website please?

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.

The first point will be actioned as soon as practical.

I'll see what I can do on the second point, however no county is under any obligation to provide this information to me.

Neil Graham wrote:

Dragoljub Sudar wrote:

Mick Norris wrote:Finalised draw with nominations confirmed:

Minor
P1: Hampshire v Greater Manchester

Q1: Cambridgeshire v Essex
Q2: Somerset v Suffolk
Q3: Sussex v Leicestershire
Q4: Nottinghamshire v P winner

S1: Q1 winner v Q2 winner
S2: Q3 winner v Q4 winner

Can someone please explain why MCCU 1 (Notts) are in the same half of the draw as MCCU 2 (Leics)?
Can whoever is responsible for this error please ensure this doesn't happen in future?

You forgot to mention that MCCU3 (Manchester) are also in the same half of the draw! I have discussed this at some length on this forum and the Director has dismissed this. The rules provide that Union first and second representatives can't meet in the quarter-finals but that rule does not extend to the semi-finals. It was convention over a long period of time that the draw was made to avoid Union first and second reps meeting unless both reached the final. In Nottinghamshire's case should our teams progress to the semi-finals they will find that three out of the four teams could be meeting MCCU opponents. I note that the Director has now, with his customary zeal, replied to this.

I can only echo the excellent post of Sean Hewitt in the previous thread

"The draw may well be legal (I've not checked, but I have no reason to doubt it) but that does not mean that it is sensible or satisfactory. In my opinion, it is neither. I seem to recall that this issue has been raised before (before Alex's time) and the response was that teams from the same union were 'kept apart where possible'. I think it is the change to this custom and practice which is being objected to."

So Neil, does this mean that you get to beat Leicestershire three times in one season?

Christopher Dunworth wrote:

Neil Graham wrote:

Dragoljub Sudar wrote:
Can someone please explain why MCCU 1 (Notts) are in the same half of the draw as MCCU 2 (Leics)?
Can whoever is responsible for this error please ensure this doesn't happen in future?

You forgot to mention that MCCU3 (Manchester) are also in the same half of the draw! I have discussed this at some length on this forum and the Director has dismissed this. The rules provide that Union first and second representatives can't meet in the quarter-finals but that rule does not extend to the semi-finals. It was convention over a long period of time that the draw was made to avoid Union first and second reps meeting unless both reached the final. In Nottinghamshire's case should our teams progress to the semi-finals they will find that three out of the four teams could be meeting MCCU opponents. I note that the Director has now, with his customary zeal, replied to this.

I can only echo the excellent post of Sean Hewitt in the previous thread

"The draw may well be legal (I've not checked, but I have no reason to doubt it) but that does not mean that it is sensible or satisfactory. In my opinion, it is neither. I seem to recall that this issue has been raised before (before Alex's time) and the response was that teams from the same union were 'kept apart where possible'. I think it is the change to this custom and practice which is being objected to."

So Neil, does this mean that you get to beat Leicestershire three times in one season?

In a word - yes. However we both have to win our quarter-finals and if we do so Leics are bound to think "third time lucky".

Unfortunately "third time lucky" vs an open strength team

Joey Stewart wrote:Unfortunately "third time lucky" vs an open strength team

Even if Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire do make it to the Minor Counties Semi-Finals (no chickens being counted) the third encounter would be different with a maximum average grade of 180, a restriction which did not apply at the Midlands stage. However, neither county managed to get very close to 180 average in the first two matches ....

The grade limit is far too generous to be prohibitive in any way. Only a handful of counties in the entire country are able to field teams averaging over 180 and they could easily enter the minor with a few low graded bottom boards to bring the average down.

Look at the way the sccu counties treat the minor as a runner up prize year in year out, "oh, you had a bad season in the internal leagues? Don't worry lads, you get to beat up the little guys instead"

Joey Stewart wrote:The grade limit is far too generous to be prohibitive in any way. Only a handful of counties in the entire country are able to field teams averaging over 180 and they could easily enter the minor with a few low graded bottom boards to bring the average down.

Look at the way the sccu counties treat the minor as a runner up prize year in year out, "oh, you had a bad season in the internal leagues? Don't worry lads, you get to beat up the little guys instead"

You have a point, but it's a fact of life that the county competitions are unbalanced, through geographic / demographic reasons. Looked at on merit, the 4th and maybe 5th placed SCCU teams should qualify for the national stages instead of playing in the minor (Essex actually came 5th in the SCCU open competition this year, having won the County Championship as recently as 2006). This would be better than the Q-final byes that have actually occurred this year because Midlands and West counties preferred to play in the minor counties.

It has struck me that, as Peter rightly says, there are a number of geographic and demographic issues affecting participation in the County Championships.

It might be better to simply treat the County Championships as a separate event (like the FA Cup if you will) and allow counties to enter directly at whatever level they like, rather than by qualifying through their Union. This means the SCCU can have 5 teams in the Open, the MCCU 5 in the Minor if they like. Chiltern league counties, currently disenfranchised, can also play. A defaulted match no longer affects the number of qualifying places. This could apply to each graded section also.

Union competitions can still run to determine regional champions, but the ECF County Championships would then be a stand alone event.

Sean Hewitt wrote:It has struck me that, as Peter rightly says, there are a number of geographic and demographic issues affecting participation in the County Championships.

It might be better to simply treat the County Championships as a separate event (like the FA Cup if you will) and allow counties to enter directly at whatever level they like, rather than by qualifying through their Union. This means the SCCU can have 5 teams in the Open, the MCCU 5 in the Minor if they like. Chiltern league counties, currently disenfranchised, can also play. A defaulted match no longer affects the number of qualifying places. This could apply to each graded section also.

Union competitions can still run to determine regional champions, but the ECF County Championships would then be a stand alone event.

An excellent idea, Sean!

John Swain wrote:

Sean Hewitt wrote:It has struck me that, as Peter rightly says, there are a number of geographic and demographic issues affecting participation in the County Championships.

It might be better to simply treat the County Championships as a separate event (like the FA Cup if you will) and allow counties to enter directly at whatever level they like, rather than by qualifying through their Union. This means the SCCU can have 5 teams in the Open, the MCCU 5 in the Minor if they like. Chiltern league counties, currently disenfranchised, can also play. A defaulted match no longer affects the number of qualifying places. This could apply to each graded section also.

Union competitions can still run to determine regional champions, but the ECF County Championships would then be a stand alone event.

An excellent idea, Sean!

Excellent and simple too. Maybe you just need some rule to keep apart teams from same region in the 1st round

That does sound like it'd be rather overwhelmingly sensible given the current entry levels/the defaults in the K/O stages etc. Sort of already happening with the NCCU of course, with both Yorks/Lancs going through in most of the competitions whatever happens in the internal event.

I never realised there even were other northern county teams, I always thought that Yorkshire and Lancashire swallowed up all the large population centers in that area so nobody else even got a look in.

Cumbria play in the U160, that's been the only one for the last few seasons