English Chess Forum

I have been made aware of an incident which took place in a local league match this week.

An away player (who travels by train) arrived at the match some 15 minutes early.

The player entered the venue and made his way to the playing room.

He was greeted by the home club Secretary who was less than pleased to see him.

The player was informed that he was not welcome and the player replied that he was there simply to play chess for the away team.

The player was due to play on board two.

The player was told to leave and was threatened (allegedly) with the Police being called if he did not leave.

The player left.

The away team arrived and were informed.

The home team defaulted board six (bottom board) and the match took place and was drawn 3-3.

What is your view and how would you react as the away club?

Was the banned player registered for the away club? If so, the home club should have protested at his registration, and their reasons for doing so could have been sorted out in advance. If they did not do this, and simply stopped him from playing chess on the evening, my reaction would be that the home team had defaulted board two as well, by refusing to play the game against the properly registered player.

Jonathan Rogers wrote:Was the banned player registered for the away club? If so, the home club should have protested at his registration, and their reasons for doing so could have been sorted out in advance. If they did not do this, and simply stopped him from playing chess on the evening, my reaction would be that the home team had defaulted board two as well, by refusing to play the game against the properly registered player.

The ejected player was registered for the away club and had been for some time.

The home club should have defaulted board two and played the rest of their team in the originally intended board order, in my opinion.

What was the objection to the away player's presence?

Ian Kingston wrote:What was the objection to the away player's presence?

I am informed that there are personal issues between the away player and the home Secretary of an unspecified nature.

As far as I am aware, no injunction is in force.

John Upham wrote:The player was told to leave and was threatened (allegedly) with the Police being called if he did not leave.

The player left.

Good trick!

We should suggest this to the Chelsea manager: for the next match against ManU at Stamford Bridge they should just tell Rooney that he's not welcome and he should please go away!

The match has already been reported as having been defaulted by the home team on board 2. Whether it was the previously scheduled board 2 who didn't get a game isn't mentioned. That's the sort of issue which can be determined by the captains on the night. The colour sequence is reported as (home team first) W-WBWB

The player concerned was a nominated member of the B squad for the club concerned. It would however have been his first appearance in the league in the third match for the team.

I don't think the league rules really cover such bizarre behaviour by home team captains. If a venue wished to make someone persona non grata, that legally remains their right, but a justification should be offered. In particular away captains and the league for that matter have every right to assume that teams as selected are allowed to play and not turn up to find a player excluded. My advice in retrospect would have been for the player to wait for the rest of the team and the match captain to show up.

Somewhat bizarrely the two clubs in question both meet on different nights at the same premises, so the issue has nothing to do with conditions of hire for the venue.

In which case, and in the absence of any other relevant factors, I think the away captain should have refused to play the match. Allowing one team to dictate who can play in the other team is outside the rules of fair play.

(League Management Committees being what they are, I can imagine all sorts of possible outcomes in such a dispute. Let's hope it's not being argued about 30 years from now.)

Was the home secretary's name anything like Mancini and the away player's Tevez?

Ian Kingston wrote: I think the away captain should have refused to play the match. Allowing one team to dictate who can play in the other team is outside the rules of fair play.

As an away captain I would have had similar views. There is however a history of petty feuding between a couple of officials or members at the respective clubs, so I imagine the away captain, who is not to my knowledge a party to this, probably wished not to inflame tensions.

Assuming the home team had 6 players available, I wonder what the home player, who presumably turned up, but didn't get a game, thought of this.

Roger de Coverly wrote: As an away captain I would have had similar views. There is however a history of petty feuding between a couple of officials or members at the respective clubs, so I imagine the away captain, who is not to my knowledge a party to this, probably wished not to inflame tensions.

Roger,

Had the League concerned been made aware by the home club that the away player would not be permitted to play for any away team at their premises?

The away captain..the home team...the club secretary..The board two player...
...The player concerned was a nominated member of the B squad for the club concerned...???

Give us names and places.
Why bring it to a public forum with less than ½ the information.
Now the whole matter is open to conjecture and specualtion
which will soon becomes taken as a fact.

It is obvious to me that the away player (who travels by train...??)
turned up 15 minutes early stark naked and the home club Secretary
did the correct thing in telling him to go away else he would call the police.

Ian Thompson wrote:Assuming the home team had 6 players available, I wonder what the home player, who presumably turned up, but didn't get a game, thought of this.

The home player was going to be playing on board six but the home club took the chance to strengthen their team by shuffing their boards downwards!

Their original board two played on board three and won.

What should have happened was that the original board two home player defaulted and the board six player played.

I am informed that the home club then went to celebrate afterwards with a curry.

Geoff Chandler wrote:Give us names and places.

This is the match card. The information given above is sufficient to identify the banned player.