Michael Flatt wrote: To my mind the ECF Competition Rules should be a stand alone document
Therein would lie disaster!
The Laws of Chess in England are the Laws written by FIDE, but FIDE, intelligently (yes.. yes I know nothing that FIDE does can, by definition, be called intelligent, but nevertheless..), explicitly draws a distinction between laws that are laws, laws that may be varied to suit local cicumstances and laws that may be varied but not in FIDE rated events. The document supplied fills out the details for a further category: not FIDE rated, but ECF graded. It also reaffirms that in FIDE rated events FIDE provisions apply. It is necessary to refer back to the FIDE document because if the FIDE rules vary we would expect that the ECF regulations would vary in sync. We do not want a position where there will be disputes arising because of contradiction between the two documents. A cursory glance at only a few Acts of Parliament will show the extreme care that legal draughtsmen apply to this very problem - and with good reason!
I agree that there are probably wording improvements that could be made (though the clear division into FIDE events, ECF events, and non ECF events that are to be ECF graded resolves most of the alleged ambiguities mentioned so far in this thread). I see nothing in the document that significantly contradicts the current general understanding of what is or is not prescriptive and nothing at all that seems to add any restrictions. There are areas where tournament directors are, sensibly, encouraged to make some definitions clear (eg playing area and playing venue). Some statements codify generally accepted relaxations (eg the permissability of permitting descriptive notation - though not, note, the permissability of descriptive notation, which is a different thing).
It is also the case that the published document states quite clearly that it comes into force next September. I am quite sure that well considered suggested amendments have every chance of success in the meantime.
This document is surely needed and valuable. It has clearly been written with the aim of allowing continued local choices within the constraint that it should not undermine the standing of the grading system. Surely we should be applauding, supporting it while also offering constructive criticism. Phrases like 'sneaked in' - because something is announced on the front page of a website rather than in a forum that is barely read - are not helpful.