Finals day 2 July
-
- Posts: 2393
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Re: Finals day 2 July
I understand that there were lots of positive comments about the day. Many thanks to everyone involved - organisers, arbiters and above all players.
-
- Posts: 10375
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Re: Finals day 2 July
Yes, been over to Yorkshire for lunch for the 2nd Sunday running - absolutely beautiful countryside, warm sunshine and a wonderful place to beMartinCarpenter wrote:Well, that does have to be qualified slightly - yes, we're fielding much stronger teams for the finals than anyone else. Not quite sure why.Mick Norris wrote:Well done to Yorkshire, they are just better than the rest at the moment
The 1/4's and 1/2's? Those teams were fairly vunerable and the match results were close. Same vs Lancashire actually, not that it counted for anything formal!
Fantastic result(s) though. We'd somehow not even won two in a row before this run so three is very good going
Any postings on here represent my personal views
-
- Posts: 3051
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am
Re: Finals day 2 July
Definitely. Next up for a triple is hopefully the county cricket team - although they are making much more of a meal of it this year! They really do know how to win historically though
-
- Posts: 10375
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Re: Finals day 2 July
I can tell you what I was doing next time I see you, but in the meantime, Forums have earsMartinCarpenter wrote:Definitely
I'm sure the Bronte sisters wouldn't have been bothered about their local cafe running out of ciabatta before noon, but I'd like to think that they wouldn't approve of charging £14 for a sandwich, panini and tea for two in a place with no toilets, let alone needing a 20p coin to get through the turnstiles in the toilets in the park
Any postings on here represent my personal views
-
- Posts: 8472
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Finals day 2 July
"Abolish Pay Toilets" was a slogan which greatly informed my early political development. Warning, the below contains juvenile content.
http://www.shazam.com/track/44146248/caca-rocka
http://www.shazam.com/track/44146248/caca-rocka
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 1235
- Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
- Location: Hertfordshire
Re: Finals day 2 July
Nothing further has appeared on this alleged incident so would I be correct in assuming that it was something trivial or even a simple misunderstanding?NickFaulks wrote:But that's not the full story, is it? I was there, and regard that result as ludicrous.Neil Graham wrote:The result is Surrey 7.5 Lancashire 8.5 as originally reported.NickFaulks wrote:Something unpleasant seems to have occurred in the U180 dispute, but I don't know what.
-
- Posts: 8472
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Finals day 2 July
No.Michael Flatt wrote:Nothing further has appeared on this alleged incident so would I be correct in assuming that it was something trivial or even a simple misunderstanding?NickFaulks wrote:But that's not the full story, is it? I was there, and regard that result as ludicrous.Neil Graham wrote: The result is Surrey 7.5 Lancashire 8.5 as originally reported.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 1235
- Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
- Location: Hertfordshire
Re: Finals day 2 July
I am impressed at how tight lipped everyone is about it and nothing has leaked out.
Is the dispute ongoing or subject to non disclosure agreement?
Is the dispute ongoing or subject to non disclosure agreement?
-
- Posts: 10375
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Re: Finals day 2 July
Lancs lost the final - Karma?NickFaulks wrote:No.Michael Flatt wrote:Nothing further has appeared on this alleged incident so would I be correct in assuming that it was something trivial or even a simple misunderstanding?NickFaulks wrote: But that's not the full story, is it? I was there, and regard that result as ludicrous.
Any postings on here represent my personal views
-
- Posts: 8472
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Finals day 2 July
I realise that it is the "as originally reported" in this comment which most annoys me. The captains disagreed on the result and the Lancashire captain got his version in first, presumably because the "neutral venue" of Derby was closer to Lancashire than to Surrey. If this gives Lancashire some moral high ground, then I think captains should bear this in mind in future.Neil Graham wrote:The result is Surrey 7.5 Lancashire 8.5 as originally reported.NickFaulks wrote:Something unpleasant seems to have occurred in the U180 dispute, but I don't know what.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 2075
- Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
- Location: Harrogate
Re: Finals day 2 July
Neutral venues will form part of my report this year. While Derby may be nearer to Lancashire as the crow flies it should be noted that Lancs is less well connected by motorway then the Southern Counties, especially for players who live out in the coastal/ rural parts.NickFaulks wrote:I realise that it is the "as originally reported" in this comment which most annoys me. The captains disagreed on the result and the Lancashire captain got his version in first, presumably because the "neutral venue" of Derby was closer to Lancashire than to Surrey. If this gives Lancashire some moral high ground, then I think captains should bear this in mind in future.Neil Graham wrote:The result is Surrey 7.5 Lancashire 8.5 as originally reported.NickFaulks wrote:Something unpleasant seems to have occurred in the U180 dispute, but I don't know what.
The procedure for confirming match results is that one captain enters the result and the second confirms it. Of course the controller has to check every result and ensure that there are no board order violations/ ineligible players etc.
A difficulty can arise when there is an issue affecting the result of the match, as happened twice this year. In the Kent vs Lincolnshire U120 match I made the result private as soon as I picked up on the issue until it could be resolved - I maintain strongly that the teams involved have the right to be consulted first (obviously the suppression of the result flagged up to the general public that there was a problem but not the nature of the problem). With Surrey vs Lancs it seemed better to keep the result as `originally reported` rather than set tongues wagging.
I would also note that Surrey did not contact me about the match until Tuesday 14th June, two days after the match.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own
-
- Posts: 1235
- Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
- Location: Hertfordshire
Re: Finals day 2 July
Andrew Zigmond wrote: I would also note that Surrey did not contact me about the match until Tuesday 14th June, two days after the match.
If Surrey had missed the 48hr window to report or dispute the result and the Competition Controller was unaware of a dispute it is understandable that he would accept the result as reported by one captain; however, if he had been requested to provide a list of Arbiters to assist the captains then the situation becomes less clear since he would have been alerted to the dispute.County Championships 2015/16 – rules[1] wrote:D5. Reporting of Results
D5.1. Results must be reported by both teams on the results server not later than 48 hours after the match was played. If a result is not reported or confirmed within the due time, the Controller may impose a fine of £10 on the offending county or counties. If neither team reports the result, the Controller may eliminate both teams.
It would be best if the chairman of the Appeal Panel provided a factual report on the incident and its resolution.
[1] County Championships 2015/16 – rules: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/competit ... onships-2/
-
- Posts: 2075
- Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
- Location: Harrogate
Re: Finals day 2 July
No such request was made. The only person who requested the assistance of an arbiter was myself when making the initial ruling. At this stage both teams were consulted to ensure the arbiter concerned was acceptable to them.Michael Flatt wrote: however, if he had been requested to provide a list of Arbiters to assist the captains then the situation becomes less clear since he would have been alerted to the dispute.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own
-
- Posts: 1235
- Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
- Location: Hertfordshire
Re: Finals day 2 July
In that case the rule seems crystal clear. If one captain reports a result within the specified time and the second doesn't the reported result must stand.Andrew Zigmond wrote:No such request was made. The only person who requested the assistance of an arbiter was myself when making the initial ruling. At this stage both teams were consulted to ensure the arbiter concerned was acceptable to them.Michael Flatt wrote: however, if he had been requested to provide a list of Arbiters to assist the captains then the situation becomes less clear since he would have been alerted to the dispute.
Why is there such reluctance for the Appeal Panel to openly report the facts of the dispute and its resolution?
-
- Posts: 1945
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm
Re: Finals day 2 July
The Appeal Committee reported to the Controller & the Director of Home Chess and thereby discharged its duties. The situation regarding the report is given on Page 3 of this thread by Alex Holowczak as follows "I am not publishing the verdict of the Appeals Committee. So far as I am concerned, the information has been distributed to those involved, and if they want to bring it into the public domain, that's up to them. To the best of my recollection, I haven't published other disputes/appeals in the recent past, and I don't see why this one is so different.Michael Flatt wrote:In that case the rule seems crystal clear. If one captain reports a result within the specified time and the second doesn't the reported result must stand.Andrew Zigmond wrote:No such request was made. The only person who requested the assistance of an arbiter was myself when making the initial ruling. At this stage both teams were consulted to ensure the arbiter concerned was acceptable to them.Michael Flatt wrote: however, if he had been requested to provide a list of Arbiters to assist the captains then the situation becomes less clear since he would have been alerted to the dispute.
Why is there such reluctance for the Appeal Panel to openly report the facts of the dispute and its resolution?