2013 Final Stage

[Roger de Coverly]

In 2012, the views of Council were sought before the rules were changed, which seems a perfectly sensible approach.

I thought it was demonstrated that the critical paragraph treating non-members as ineligible players was introduced after the Council consultation.

[John Swain]

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?

Are you for real? I mean, how sanctimonious can you get? I know what was said by the appeals committee because I was there and you don't, because you weren't.

Yet you believe that you are not wrong and have the audacity suggest that I should consult with my colleagues to clarify what we agreed.

Unbelievable.

I am very much for "real" (whatever that means) and I, like everyone else, know what was said by the Committee, because it published the report for everyone to read! Or have you forgotten? I am not at all interested in what discussions took place within the four walls of your committee room, only in the published findings.

I am trying to suggest that too many pronouncements by you on this Forum may be understood/misunderstood differently from the Appeal Committee's published findings and may dilute the impact of the Committee's statement.

The only "audacity" I can perceive is your willingness to speak unilaterally on behalf of a three-man committee, one of whom is the ECF President, and your need, displayed frequently on this Forum, to have the last word on everything. Don't be surprised if I don't bother to respond to your inevitable reply!!

[David Pardoe]

As the old addage says...rules are for the guidance of the wise and blind obedience of fools..
I seem to remember when my ECF membership ran out in November of a previous year, I got a written reminder from the ECF which said that my renewal was due and if not renewed by the end of month, then my membership would be offficially deemed to have lapsed.
That seemed perfectly reasonable. Did anything similar happen here..?
It is quite normal in situations like this to give some period of grace before bringing down the guilotine..
And particularly where you are dealing with a `customer` who is long standing and known to be likely to renew.
I think that a discretion should be applicable to all such rules, which allows the `controller` some leaway in interpreting and applying rules fairly, and in the interests of fair play.
Otherwise, the controller is always in a difficult position of having to follow what may be poorly drafted or incomplete rules.

There`s another glaring inconsistancy with this case (it might appear..), as regards the rules.
In the case of a league player, it is perfectly possible to play in various leagues throughout a season, without having to become a member of the ECF, and to pay membership retrospectively (or a game fee amount), at a later date, that enables games to be counted for grading etc...
A similar situation should surely apply for county chess, although the county would, in effect have to act as guarantor for such players. But I cant see why a player who might play say 4 county games in a season shouldnt be allowed the option of paying an £8 game fee if they wish..
I`ve said before that I`d like to see a few more flexible `membership`/gamefee payment options....

[Roger de Coverly]

.
A similar situation should surely apply for county chess, although the county would, in effect have to act as guarantor for such players. But I cant see why a player who might play say 4 county games in a season shouldnt be allowed the option of paying an £8 game fee if they wish.

They are, at least in the Union competitions, the SCCU anyway. It's the National stages where the ECF dogmatically is insisting on membership for everyone.

[Roger de Coverly]

In the case of a league player, it is perfectly possible to play in various leagues throughout a season, without having to become a member of the ECF, and to pay membership retrospectively (or a game fee amount), at a later date, that enables games to be counted for grading etc...

That's not totally the case. It's the organisation running the league who are going to be hit for the Game Fee payment. So games will automatically be graded regardless of an individual's membership status. The yet to be resolved question is how organisations hit by a £ 2 per game demand will seek to recover it or refuse to pay.

It was an extremely cunning plan by Andrew Farthing and others to push the support for a membership scheme from 55% to 70% and simultaneously avoid the problem of needing a 75% majority for constitutional change.

In its way it was a very clever solution. You dodge the question of what happens if someone plays chess without being an ECF member. The current issues on county matches are because it didn't apply this logic to events that the ECF ran.

[Richard Bates]

A rule change which I can't believe would not satisfy everyone without having any impact on the 'compulsory' membership scheme is as follows:

Rule:

1) All players in the National Stages of the County Championship must be members of the ECF at bronze level or above

Meaning of rule and consequences of 'breach':

2) To be classed as a member of the ECF for the purposes of 1) an individual's membership to cover any games contested must be purchased/renewed by the date of the Final weekend. The penalty for any county fielding a player not meeting this condition will be (say) £50 per incidence.

I don't see any need for the rule to be written to require membership on the day of the match, considering this is at odds with the generally accepted working of the scheme. There is consequently no need to impose punitive financial penalties at the time and it can be done for isolated breaches at the end of the year, when there will be evidence that there is defiance (wilful/principled depending of your point of view) of the rule.

[Sean Hewitt]

In 2012, the views of Council were sought before the rules were changed, which seems a perfectly sensible approach.

I thought it was demonstrated that the critical paragraph treating non-members as ineligible players was introduced after the Council consultation.

Nope. It was clear in the consultation paper that players would have to be bronze members in order to play in the final stages. A player not able to play in accordance with the rules is, by definition, ineligible.

[Richard Bates]

In 2012, the views of Council were sought before the rules were changed, which seems a perfectly sensible approach.

I thought it was demonstrated that the critical paragraph treating non-members as ineligible players was introduced after the Council consultation.

Nope. It was clear in the consultation paper that players would have to be bronze members in order to play in the final stages.

I think the confusion arose from earlier discussions after the quarter finals, when the penalty rules were being strongly criticised and (from memory, apologies if i'm wrong) Alex H (and possibly yourself supporting him?) argued that he was being unfairly criticised for simply enforcing a set of rules which had been approved by Council. The implication being that on this he was just a prisoner of Council.

What subsequent discussion has shown is that there was insufficient distinction drawn between the rule itself (ECF membership at bronze or above), and the penalties used to enforce it.

[Sean Hewitt]

I am not at all interested in what discussions took place within the four walls of your committee room, only in the published findings.

Great stuff. In which case I suggest that you read exactly what the three of us wrote, and stop trying to infer hidden meanings that simply are not there.

Had we meant to say that we thought the Director should change the rule, then we would have said so.

[Sean Hewitt]

A rule change which I can't believe would not satisfy everyone without having any impact on the 'compulsory' membership scheme is as follows:

Rule:

1) All players in the National Stages of the County Championship must be members of the ECF at bronze level or above

Meaning of rule and consequences of 'breach':

2) To be classed as a member of the ECF for the purposes of 1) an individual's membership to cover any games contested must be purchased/renewed by the date of the Final weekend. The penalty for any county fielding a player not meeting this condition will be (say) £50 per incidence.

I don't see any need for the rule to be written to require membership on the day of the match, considering this is at odds with the generally accepted working of the scheme. There is consequently no need to impose punitive financial penalties at the time and it can be done for isolated breaches at the end of the year, when there will be evidence that there is defiance (wilful/principled depending of your point of view) of the rule.

On a personal level I'd have no problem with a rule such as this, though my gut feel is I'd like to see a smaller figure (say £25).

[Roger de Coverly]

Nope. It was clear in the consultation paper that players would have to be bronze members in order to play in the final stages. A player not able to play is, by definition, ineligible.

The penalty, being that the player's board would be defaulted and the match result overturned was not however in the version "discussed" at the April 2012 meeting and various alternative penalties have since been suggested. It's a shame in some ways that the author of membership is unwilling to defend his creation. I put to him on various occasions the adverse effects of his scheme which he refused to accept.

It also comes down to whether the ECF's scheme is a license to play. Clearly if it is and you play chess without being in possession of a valid license there will be penalties. But it's been denied that the ECF wants to go in that direction.

[Sean Hewitt]

The penalty, being that the player's board would be defaulted .....was not however in the version "discussed" at the April 2012 meeting.

Please stop peddling that lie. From the paper put to Council

A4. In the Final Stage each team shall pay an entry fee, and all players must be ECF members at bronze level or above.

C3.3. The penalty for playing an ineligible player in any match shall be the loss of the game for that player and a win for the opponent, provided the opponent is present and eligible; plus a deduction of one penalty point for each ineligible player from the resulting total score made by the County in that match. The game(s) will still be graded according to the result of the game as played.

Council expressed no dissent to this proposal.

[Roger de Coverly]

Council expressed no dissent to this proposal.

It's apparent that Council were not made aware of the effects of the rule and may well have queried it had they realised them. But it was a period when the Board were keen to downplay the adverse effects of compulsory membership. The additional wording about defaults was added, not by Council, but by the Controller, the Director or the Board.

The Board complain about Council trying to micromanage issues, but is it really a surprise when the Board try to sneak things past without being clear on their likely effects?

The next AGM will no doubt leave the Board in no doubt as to Council's attitude to heavy handed penalties. Perhaps it will support them.

[Angus French]

The penalty, being that the player's board would be defaulted .....was not however in the version "discussed" at the April 2012 meeting.

Please stop peddling that lie. From the paper put to Council

A4. In the Final Stage each team shall pay an entry fee, and all players must be ECF members at bronze level or above.

C3.3. The penalty for playing an ineligible player in any match shall be the loss of the game for that player and a win for the opponent, provided the opponent is present and eligible; plus a deduction of one penalty point for each ineligible player from the resulting total score made by the County in that match. The game(s) will still be graded according to the result of the game as played.

Council expressed no dissent to this proposal.

And nor, if I recall, did it express agreement.

The fact is that discussion of the proposed rules came at the end of the meeting and was rushed. (As an aside, and having attended the last four Council meetings, I feel that recent agendas have been too long and haven't allowed for sufficient discussion of various items. In my view, this risks bad decision making.)

I also note that C3.3. has been amended and now reads: "C3.3. The penalty for playing an ineligible player in any match shall be the loss of the game for that player and a win for the opponent, provided the opponent is present and eligible; plus a deduction of one penalty point for each ineligible player from the resulting total score made by the County in that match. The game(s) will still be graded according to the result of the game as played. The Controller may impose an additional penalty if he is satisfied that the inclusion of an ineligible player was deliberate or wilful."

The last sentence has been added without, I believe, Council being given the opportunity to express a view on it.

[John Upham]

I feel that recent agendas have been too long and haven't allowed for sufficient discussion of various items. In my view, this risks bad decision making.)

Which items would you recommended were omitted from the agendas?