Finals day 2 July

[Michael Flatt]

Late final extra, read all about it!

The result of the U-180 National Semi-final match: Surrey 7.5-8.5 Lancs - as submitted ... on the 12th June, the day of the match - has not yet been confirmed by Surrey on the official ECF ('oxfordfusion') results site.

And, the SCCA website has the following comment (in its County fixtures / results) -

"A dispute concerning board 16 could alter the outcome of the match"

...

It looks as though Surrey were mistaken in attracting attention to the dispute when the deadline for submitting results had passed.
Having raised the issue so publicly, perhaps it is they who should have reported the outcome of the appeal themselves?

[John McKenna]

Michael, in response to your post immediately above, I and not "Surrey" was the first to draw attention on the forum to the unconfirmed result.

I did it entirely on my own initiative based solely on the info on the Surrey & the ECF "oxfordfusion" results sites. Although I play chess in and for the county of Surrey I do not merit being mistaken for it.

I've never had any communication with anyone regarding the match in question and, although I was aware of the anomaly for several days, I only posted what (and all) I knew about it (in my post that you quoted, above) when this thread first started - because it failed to show that there was a problem with the result of the U-180 match Surrey-Lancs.

Due to what I have stated, above, namely my total lack of actual involvement in the matter, apart from as an interested bystander, I have also refrained from posting in this thread. I simply pointed out three facts (and had nothing to add) -

First, that the result was unconfirmed on the official ECF results site.

Second, that on the Surrey site the match result was still undecided due to a dispute on 16th bd.

Third, that the Lancs. player on that board was William O'Rourke.

Make of that what you will but, rest assured, it was all of my own making.

[Ian Thompson]

In that case the rule seems crystal clear.

The rules are crystal clear - the penalty for late reporting of results is a £10 fine.

If one captain reports a result within the specified time and the second doesn't the reported result must stand.

If that were the case then I'd expect the rules to say that, but they don't.

There's also no evidence on this thread that Surrey were late. The 48 hours deadline would have been c. 18:00 hrs on 14 June and we've been told Surrey reported the result on 14 June, but not at what time.

[Michael Flatt]

In that case the rule seems crystal clear.

The rules are crystal clear - the penalty for late reporting of results is a £10 fine.

If one captain reports a result within the specified time and the second doesn't the reported result must stand.

If that were the case then I'd expect the rules to say that, but they don't.

There's also no evidence on this thread that Surrey were late. The 48 hours deadline would have been c. 18:00 hrs on 14 June and we've been told Surrey reported the result on 14 June, but not at what time.

Apart from the few very careful comments made by the National Controller neither the protagonists nor officials have been willing to clarify what the actual incident was about.

It is not a very satisfactory situation for those trying to understand how the competition rules have been applied.

[Michael Flatt]

Following a recent meeting of the board of Surrey County Chess Association a statement referring to the incident and proposed follow up action has appeared on its website: http://www.scca.co.uk/SCCA/docs/board_s ... y_2016.doc

[NickFaulks]

For the record, the players in the team have all now been sent a copy of the decisions, something I requested. I am grateful for that. We have been asked not to publish these, or comment on them, while Surrey's further discussions with the ECF continue. I'm not sure that I see the advantage in this, but shall accede to their request. I look forward to hearing that the period of purdah is over.

[Neil Graham]

I understand that there were lots of positive comments about the day. Many thanks to everyone involved - organisers, arbiters and above all players.

Now that we have ceased discussion, at least for the time being, on the dispute in the semi-final can I echo the comments made by Mike Truran above.
Can I thank Andrew Zigmond and Alex Holowczak for the work they put into the event and the arbiters who officiated at the Finals? Nottinghamshire played eight matches in the Final stages of the competition; all of which were played without hassle and all of which were contested closely with our various opponents and all the arrangements both at the matches and before were conducted courteously with the various captains and venues. We look forward to 2016/2017!

[Roger de Coverly]

while Surrey's further discussions with the ECF continue.

It's hardly likely that the Finals will be replayed, so why not publish for the sake of it and for the information of League controllers and Match Captains who might potentially be caught up in a similar dispute?