Default rules

[Richard Bates]

The rules state that if any player is named on a team list and subsequently fails to show then their team is recorded as having received two defaults. Three defaults in a season results in the deduction of 1 match point.

Can anyone explain what a team is supposed to do if a player, especially a female player*, is forced to withdraw through illness on the morning of a weekend (ie. after the deadline when the arbiters may be informed without incurring penalty)?

Through the result of one unforeseen illness, a team is effectively penalised at least 1pt, with the probable loss of more due to match results being altered through the absence of that player. Is this what the rules were really written for?

And yes i can declare an interest on this one.

*the increasingly indefensible and counterproductive rule on multisex teams makes things even more difficult (it is completely impractical, if not impossible, to maintain a reserve female player on standby) but that is another debate.

[Sean Hewitt]

I think it's absolutely right and proper that a team which defaults a board (for any reason) is penalised. I think it's also right that a team which defaults without sufficient notice should be penalised more heavily that one which notifies its opponents in advance.

This may seem harsh on a team which suffers from some unforseen circumstance but the current rules, which require three defaults before a match point is deducted, seem about right to me. If the problem is a one off then ultimately there is no penalty.

The question of female / junior players is a different issue. I'm not sure why the rule exists. My view is if a player is good enough then age / sex should be irrelevant. Equally, if they are not good enough, then age / sex should still be irrelevant!

[IM Jack Rudd]

Richmond aren't the only team to have suffered from this rule this season. Northwest Eagles' first-round match against Wood Green Hilsmark Kingfisher 2 was marked by three of their team's being in a car that broke down. (To add insult to injury, all three of their players would have had white.) Unsurprisingly, they lost the match, and the two default penalty points per defaulted board they got meant they have now had two points deducted.

[Richard Bates]

Thanks Sean, Jack, but the purpose of the post is not to query either the existence of the rule (it's written down, and clear) nor the basic rationale for it. (although i obviously query sean's "one-off" argument - the nature of 4ncl means that a player, especially a female player, being forced to pull out of a weekend will instantly cost a team 3 default pts). The purpose is to ask "what is a team supposed to do to avoid it?"

It is undoubtedly a punitive rule. And the purpose of punitive justice is not to make a penalty fit the crime, but to discourage behaviour that will cause the crime to occur in the first place.

In the real world, California does not have a "three strikes and you're out" law because jail is an appropriate penalty for dropping litter, but to discourage people from committing the first two crimes to put themselves in that position.

In chess, the mobile phone rule does not exist because an immediate loss is necessarily an appropriate penalty, but to ensure that people turn their phones off in the first place. The "must be present at the start" rule in Greece did not exist because a default was a fair penalty for turning up a few minutes late, but to ensure that people arrived in good time so that the penalty need not apply.

The fundamental corollary of any punitive rule is that it must be possible to take precautionary action to prevent its application. (the small debate on here about the Greece "no default time" rule centred on the fact that it is one thing to have such a rule during an international tournament with every player staying in the same hotel at the venue, another for situations where players have to travel distances to get to the game).

The rationale for this default rule is presumably that teams should be informed in advance so that they can avoid players travelling unnecessarily, and the extension for "named players defaulting" to prevent captains from adopting sharp practice and naming someone who isn't going to turn up, knowing that they can continue searching for a player who can then step in as a "reserve" on the day. Not, I suggest, to penalise teams who suffer from unforeseen circumstances such as the examples cited.

I would submit that there is no realistic guidance that can be offered to seek to avoid falling foul of this rule. It is not realistic to expect entire teams to travel down on the Friday. Teams could potentially take precautions against male players dropping out by having a reserve (although obviously, short of having a talent for clairvoyence, this would not have helped North West Eagles) although i doubt such an idea would meet with universal acclaim from captains (ironically Richmond did indeed have a reserve available until Thursday when another player was forced to withdraw due to other unavoidable circumstances). It is obviously however not feasible for every team to have a reserve female player.

Consequently a rule which has the primary purpose of encouraging team captains to declare defaults in advance, and prevent them from adopting sharp practice to circumvent it, has the result of catching up teams who can take no precautionary action. I would argue that for a punitive rule that is fundamentally counterproductive. As a result several more teams will probably fall foul of it before the season is out. Some captains will probably decide it's not worth the bother.

And they get fined as well.

[Mike Truran]

Richard, this was discussed at the captains meeting at Hinckley Island (sponsored by David Buckley of Bristol). The overall view (and Claire, who will be doing the minutes, will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong) was that:

1. If the current rules are pretty black and white, that is because we were trying to avoid long and arduous debates about what does or doesn't constitute "mitigating circumstances" in individual cases. At least with the current rules, as you say, everybody knows where they are.

2. If the rules now verge on the draconian (which I think could be debated anyway - the German and French leagues for example are more severe), that is because of the long history of defaults in the 4NCL and the desire on the part of most captains to eradicate them as far as possible. Indeed, many captains would have gone further than we have.

3. We should wait until the end of the season and revisit at that time to assess the level of defaults under the new regime and if needs be have another look at the default rules (I imagine that could entail either a relaxation or a tightening of the rules).

Mike

[Richard Bates]

Thanks for the response Mike, and noted that this has been discussed. Sadly, whilst it may be very nice to have "black and white" rules, that is not much good if a serious effort isn't made to address the often unavoidable reasons for defaults (outside the circumstances of the two examples quoted), fundamentally centering on the Mixed Sex rule. I also suspect that a large influence has been had by the attempt by Slough Sharks (as were) to run 3 teams on the basis of a squad that was barely sufficient for one, assisted by the one-off circumstances of no relegation.

I suspect that the result will be that defaults do not significantly decline, or if they do it will be merely thanks to teams seeking any player they can get their hands on to plug a gap. Is a default really so much less desirable than a situation where you have players of who are only playing to board fill to avoid penalty?

[Mike Truran]

Richard, if you're proved right and defaults do not decline significantly, that will certainly be an important point to consider when the rules are reviewd before next season.

Mike

[Ben Purton]

Up burning the Candle doing an essay.

Read this "squad that was barely sufficient for one" ....When did I not have well over 1 team last year? I struggled to get many if any for the thirds but in most part had two teams.

Also on another note, Richmond decided to select Chantal over your old lady player, Sabrina. My female Arlette, dropped out a few days before 4NCL, I asked over 20 women to play, none could do both days, but I got two seperate women to play.

As we were the main default problem last year , the fact you think defaults wont drop is doubting our possibility to get one team out this year? Which wont happen. Last weekend the women dropping out at last minute is the worst case sceaniro for us and we still got a team out.

In respect to your plug filling idea. I gave Jonathan Rogers and the whole Barbican setup the option to face a 2100 man(which i had 3-4 spare) or N.E women I could find. After asking the players involved , they asked to play the Women regardless of strength , over a FIDE rated game.

Kind regards

Ben

[Richard Bates]

Hi Ben,

Apologies for suggesting that last year you attempted to do the impossible, rather than the merely improbable! You are of course limiting yourself to just one team this year... Not that it has made your job any easier from the sound of it! Maybe i'm underestimating your powers of persuasion, but i suspect that even your extensive list of female phone contacts ( ) might have struggled with Arlette being forced to pull out at 9am on the Saturday. Replacing 3 players broken down on the motorway would have been the ultimate challenge though

I have never captained a team, and have huge admiration for anyone who does it (whatever their other faults... ). I think unnecessary rules which both make their jobs significantly harder, leave them attracting unfair blame and criticism when they fall foul of them, and which consequently will lead to more of them asking "what's the point?" should be avoided as much as possible. And if the default rule is to stay then urgent attention should be paid to the mixed sex/junior rule. I don't know, maybe active discussions are already underway in this respect...

BTW my speculation on the impact of the default rule was ignoring what happened with Slough Sharks last year (hence my reference to changes being made on the back of a "one-off" scenario).

Some captains may claim to like "black and white" rules (until they fall foul of them...?), which require no need to rule on "mitigating circumstances". Sadly by removing any allowance for mitigating circumstances in the rules, you don't remove the fact that they exist. I think if you are going to make no such allowance then the "black and white" rules should allow for some leeway. The rules as they stand do not allow for "one-off" breaches, and for that reason i think they are too tough. One off occasions with mitigating circumstances are usually genuine, several occasions should give rise to penalties.

[Sean Hewitt]

Hi Richard,

I'm not sure I made myself as clear as I could have done previously. When I said that one off events shouldnt have an overall effect on defaults, I wasn't referring to a missing junior / female player. As I said in the post, thats a different subject and I'm not at all sure why the 4NCL insist on putting potentially weaker players into a team. But I can see how a missing female player (esp at short notice) could be a real nightmare.

For the record - I'm against allowing mitigating factors to be considered as one persons mitigation is anothers feeble excuse. However, the punishment should be such that a first offence sees little or no punishment (hence a one off problem having no real effect) whilst subsequent offences are punished progressively more severely (as its repeat offenders who need dealing with).

For the record, we had a couple of short notice drop outs this weekend too. After many calls I was able to get a couple of fillers to play each day - and at £10 per wildcard registration that cost me £40! Handing over that cash cheered me up no end!

[David Shepherd]

Maybe the rules could be altered very slightly to allow no penalties for defaults in a limited set of circumstances which are set out in advance such as a car accident on the way to the venue, hospitalisation or death of a competitor etc - these events should be clear cut, and easily proven to have happened.

[Ben Purton]

I also for 1 board had to pay £20 because of a late drop out, and I could only get a women for each day. I want to know how many wildcards do we think there are each weekend , 20? I mean we have 6 here already and I know there are alot more.

So the 4NCL make approx a "G" on wildcard....Where does it go? If they say it supplements the prize money, then they are assuming(expecting) us to have wildcards, which is wrong.

Ben

[IM Jack Rudd]

Organizations everywhere budget based on what they expect to happen. If your records so far show that there are an average of, say, 20 wildcards per weekend, then you should budget based on an expectation of 20 wildcard fees per weekend. That's just good business sense.

The prize fund is, I would expect, guaranteed regardless of the number of wildcard fees; if there are fewer than expected, the 4NCL may make a loss as a result. That's the way these things go.