2013 Final Stage

[Richard Bates]

That's the same March Board meeting which imposed membership requirements on Schools events.

I'm not quite sure what or who "Home Chess" actually consists of, to be in a position to insist. Is it any more than an edict of the current director ?

Just to clarify: the Board meeting minutes are for the March 2013 meeting - which obviously took place after the (April) 2012 Finance Council meeting.
I guess that begs the question: Is it the case that AH sought Council's consent for the rule, didn't get the consent and then sought the Board's approval for the change - and this was given? (Of course, I sincerely hope that that's not what happened and I would be a bit incredulous if it did.)

Personally i think there are two issues - the rule, and the penalties for breaching it. Once the ECF (be it board, council or director's edict) approves a rule like this, does it effectively give the Director carte blanche to determine how the rule will be enforced? Whether it be through financial penalties (restorative or punative - and is there actually any limit on this?) or sporting. It is the imposition of sporting penalties which causes the particular problem because it renders the concept of a County "team" match a farce and hugely unsatisfying - there is no sense of playing to win as a team, making playing decisions in accordance with the state of play in the match, when unknown penalties are liable to be imposed at a later date (this is slightly different to the situation in, for example, the 4NCL, where although i don't like them there either, generally any penalties are known about in advance).

The question of enforcement/penalties was one i tried to raise in the case of the National Schools discussion. If enforcement is proving contentious enough in the County Championship who knows how it would be done satisfactorily in that competition?

[Jonathan Rogers]

Since we have a number of Middlesex players on this forum, and those who have commented so far do seem to accept that they lost the match fair and square, I'd like to ask them whether (as far as they know) their captain consulted any of them before asking Alex H to apply the penalty?

Back to my earlier point - why are we still waiting for the outcome of the appeal? Surely AH's decision can be over-ruled on the basis that Middlesex did not object in advance. This, some of us may recall, was the basis for the highly analogous decision in Witney v Bristol 2 in 4NCL 2000/1, recently discussed in a 4NCL thread: there too a Bristol 2 player's ineligibility was only noticed after the event but the over the board result still stood. I assume that nowhere in the "rule" (if that is what it is) about ECF membership is it stated one way or another whether objection must be made in advance, and if so, then this is the appeal committee's opportunity to reach an outcome according to common sense by deciding that, for reasons of sporting certainty, it must have been assumed that objection would have to be made in advance.

[Richard Bates]

Back to my earlier point - why are we still waiting for the outcome of the appeal? .

The appeal (the basis of which i know not) was rejected.

[Richard Bates]

I assume that nowhere in the "rule" (if that is what it is) about ECF membership is it stated one way or another whether objection must be made in advance, and if so, then this is the appeal committee's opportunity to reach an outcome according to common sense by deciding that, for reasons of sporting certainty, it must have been assumed that objection would have to be made in advance.

I get the impression that the opposition have no discretion to voluntarily over-ride the "rules". This was apparent in the previous discussion when penalties first started being applied at the quarter-final stages (the first tranche). Apparently the only thing the opposition can opt to ignore is the 10pt rule on board order. They can't even, for example, agree to a non-(July) graded player playing in an Open match if this player hasn't been cleared in advance by the Controller and had a grade assigned.

Since we have a number of Middlesex players on this forum, and those who have commented so far do seem to accept that they lost the match fair and square, I'd like to ask them whether (as far as they know) their captain consulted any of them before asking Alex H to apply the penalty?

I think i am correct in stating that the Middlesex captain did not "ask" Alex H to apply the penalty. The penalty was applied independently to any action by Middlesex/the Opposition (as it was, for example, in the Essex Minor quarterfinal, and probably in almost all other incidences of retrospective penalties in this year's national stages).

[Roger de Coverly]

I'd like to ask them whether (as far as they know) their captain consulted any of them before asking Alex H to apply the penalty?

Is it even known that this happened (see Richard Bates' comment above) ? They would have had to have been investigative to research this, as the results service was showing all players as members. There was an account on their county match blog which doesn't mention anything about checking the legality of the Kent team.

Still, if there's no Controller prepared to apply such rules next year, the competition won't take place.

[John Swain]

Still, if there's no Controller prepared to apply such rules next year, the competition won't take place.

I cannot imagine many people wanting to control the competition next year with the rules as ordained/interpreted/enforced as at present.

I also cannot imagine many county organisations finding captains and players willing to travel long distances, win or lose an enjoyable match fair-and-square, then wait to see if the Controller spoils the experience a day or two later.

[Jonathan Rogers]

My understanding is that the Middlesex captain did raise the point and that Alex H did not act unilaterally. I'll happily apologise if my hearsay source is mistaken.

No reason why Alex H could not just tell us ...

[Angus French]

Getting back to the main subject, the County Championships Final, the storm is perhaps only just starting.

I have just had an abusive email, making use of the f-word, by a Middlesex "colleague", who is strongly in favour of Holowczak's approach. Fortunately, he is in one of the lower sections.

Watch this space.

I'd like to know about the provenance of the rule on non-ECF members. I raised some issues about this last Monday and asked if anyone knew of the history. See http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 35#p116134. So far no one has come forward to help explain.

In summary, my concerns are:
1. The rule as currently published is NOT as it was in the proposal text which was presented for discussion/approval at the 2012 Finance Council meeting.
2. The rule change is not documented in the minutes of the 2012 Finance Council meeting.
3. I attended the meeting and don't recall discussion or a vote on the proposed rule. It could be that I've forgotten (and also didn't note the change) though I'm confident that given the opportunity I would have voted against the proposal - and likely I would have remembered doing that.

On consulting the Wayback Machine, it appears as though the published rules for the national stages of the County Championship were changed at some point between 11 July 2012 and 23 July 2012 (scroll down to the rules section and then rule A4). So far as I can make out, the chronology of events is:

1. 14 April 2012 - ECF Finance Council Meeting takes place. Council discusses changes to the rules for the national stages of the County Championships. As evidenced by the minutes for the meeting, it approves some of the proposed changes but not apparently others. The proposed new rule "A4. In the Final Stage each team shall pay an entry fee, and all players must be ECF members at bronze level or above." is NOT approved (judging by the minutes and also according to my recollection of the meeting).
2. late April 2012 - The national stages of the County Championships for 2011/12 commence (Alex Holowczak is controller but not yet ECF Home Director of Chess).
3. 7 July 2012 - Finals day for the national stages of the County Championships for 2011/12.
4. On or after 11 July 2012 and on or before 23 July 2012 - Rule A4 (or at least the published version) changed to read "A4. In the Final Stage all players must be ECF members at bronze level or above. Non-members shall be deemed to be ineligible, and treated in accordance with C3.3."
5. 13 October 2012. Alex Holowczak appointed ECF Home Director of Chess at the ECF AGM.

So, it appears:
1. The rule change requiring participants in the national stages of the County Championships to be members of the ECF was NOT approved by Council in April 2012. It therefore did not take effect for the 2011/12 competition.
2. Somehow, just after the conclusion of the 2011/12 competition, the rules - or at the least the published text of the rules - were changed to require participants to be members of the ECF.
The change was apparently without the consent of Council.

Who approved the rule change and on what authority - how was it possible to change the rule when the previously proposed change had apparently not been approved by Council?

I think this needs a response from the ECF Board.

Surely rule A4, as it's currently published, should be disregarded for the national stages of 2012/13 County Championships.

[Richard Bates]

My understanding is that the Middlesex captain did raise the point and that Alex H did not act unilaterally. I'll happily apologise if my hearsay source is mistaken.

No reason why Alex H could not just tell us ...

You might be right, although i'm not sure that should automatically be taken as evidence that Middlesex (in general or just the captain) favoured the application of the penalty as it transpired.

I'll shut up now.

[Richard James]

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... Appeal.pdf

[Simon Brown]

If what Angus says is correct, then Kent have a legal case to overturn the result and to sue for damages. No protection in law for negligence, so I would be feeling concerned if I were AH and also possibly a member of the committee which rejected the appeal. Anyone know who that was?

[Richard James]

If what Angus says is correct, then Kent have a legal case to overturn the result and to sue for damages. No protection in law for negligence, so I would be feeling concerned if I were AH and also possibly a member of the committee which rejected the appeal. Anyone know who that was?

The Appeal Committee
Roger Edwards, President
Sean Hewitt, Non Executive Director
Jack Rudd, Non Executive Director

[Simon Brown]

Thanks Richard. Let's hope either Angus is wrong or they have their D&O fully paid!

[Richard Bates]

If what Angus says is correct, then Kent have a legal case to overturn the result and to sue for damages. No protection in law for negligence, so I would be feeling concerned if I were AH and also possibly a member of the committee which rejected the appeal. Anyone know who that was?

Surely that would depend on what the grounds were for the appeal? An appeal committee can't be held responsible for not upholding an appeal on grounds which aren't presented in the appeal.

[Alex Holowczak]

No reason why Alex H could not just tell us ...

Well, why should I? There's so much ill-informed drivel in this thread that I can't be bothered wasting my time replying to it all.