2013 Final Stage

[Roger de Coverly]

If (all of) it was approved in the April 2012 Finance Council meeting, why isn't that recorded in the minutes when other, arguably more minor, changes for the County Championships are?

I thought the timeline clear enough. The April 2012 meeting approved, perhaps by default, the general principle of requiring membership for the national stages but without a penalty being specified. The actual penalty was added later by either the controller, the relevant director or the Board as a whole. According to the wayback machine research, this was in July 2012 after the 2011-12 competition was completed.

Although he doesn't have anything to do with county teams, the relevant director at the time is strongly associated with the Middlesex county association.

[Sean Hewitt]

If (all of) it was approved in the April 2012 Finance Council meeting, why isn't that recorded in the minutes when other, arguably more minor, changes for the County Championships are?

I did attend the April 2012 meeting though I can't comment on the minutes as I didn't produce them, and I was not present at the subsequent meeting which did approve them. That said, one must start at the beginning, with is to look at what was actually put to Council.

Council is invited to provide comments on proposed changes to the County Championship rules to take effect for the 2012/13 season.

Council was not asked to approve (or otherwise) the proposed rule changes, it was merely invited to comment. Of course, the Director took note of these comments when finalising the 2012/13 rules.

I thought the timeline clear enough. The April 2012 meeting approved, perhaps by default, the general principle of requiring membership for the national stages ....

I think that's broadly right. As I recall, no adverse comments were made about the requirement to be an ECF member in the final stages. The proposals did not mention penalties (I suspect) because the rules already provided for penalties for playing an ineligible player.

[Sean Hewitt]

Therefore how do I go around getting my white form ripped up, as I signed this form under different conditions at the time

According to the Articles of Association

A4(1). A member shall cease to be a member if he resigns by giving notice to the Company.

[Roger de Coverly]

The proposals did not mention penalties (I suspect) because the rules already provided for penalties for playing an ineligible player.

Members of Council would however have been aware that the application of default penalties was an extremely rare event and might have supposed that the rule just meant that the ECF would ask the County for at least £ 12 per non-member.

I think it unlikely that they favoured overturning the result of a close semi-final match because someone was late renewing a membership.

[Peter Ackley]

I have received a response from the Middx captain - see below (italics). As he does not wish to join the forum (I can understand why) I don't intend to be an intermediary on this again.

So to the matter at hand. Some background information. One of the responsibilities of the Middlesex MC is to ensure Middlesex match records are complete, our records after all date back to 1907 (match records 1908). Knowing I have this responsibility it would be remiss of me not to ensure that the records were fully complete as far as is practicable so that future generations of MCCA members or chess historians could have all information to hand. In order to fulfil this commitment the actions I take are:
1) After a match I complete an electronic copy of team sheet so that match records are complete
2) I did not have a paper copy of the Kent vs. Middlesex match - after all I was with the u180 for their match against Cambridgeshire - I was therefore awaiting Nevil to send me an electronic copy. In meantime I referred to ECF Online Results Service as result had been input to make initial check on respective line-ups an work out how we'd lost the game
3) On receiving Nevil's electronic copy which incidentally only had names and grades of Kent's players hence my actions - Kent captain had not completed ECF official team sheet but supplied a sheet from notepad I attach copies of the team sheets used on the day - I cross-referenced with the Online results service
4) I completed electronic copy of team sheet with details presented and accessed ECF Membership list to ensure these details complete also. I was able to complete all bar James Schofield
5) On finding that James was not on list I contacted Alan Hanreck to congratulate him and Kent on their win and inform him there may be a problem as I couldn't find James details. He assured that James was a member as far as he knew and was able to supply me with the missing Membership Number - this was confirmed by clicking onto ECF logo on the Online Results Service
6) Once I'm satisfied I have completed details I inform competition controller, ECF Office and SCCU webmaster and send appropriate paperwork. In this case although there is an online service I still continued with this policy. Consequently I advised Alex that I had updated Online Results Service and sent him a paper copy stating that I was unable to find James details on Membership list. It is presumed Alex checks proper application of rules where ECF Membership is one of them so I did not think there was anything to this comment and certainly that it would lead to the storm that followed after all it was a factual observation. If check is made anyway then who cares about what I said since it would have been superfluous.
[Please note it was this process that also allowed me to identify that Warwickshire's Bd12 was ineligible (what is it with Bd12's against Middlesex?) There like this time I said to Alex that it is probably just a case of ECF Membership list not being up-to-date - I can forward a copy of this email to you if you desire.]

The above is a natural process and has been for the past 7 seven years of my captaincy, starting with the u175 in 2006-07 and will continue to be so long as I'm MC as in part the MC is archivist/historian thus in acting in this capacity and following my process by making an observation it may have inadvertently caused a storm. Again I draw attention to the fact that it is presumed check on ECF Membership is done anyway.

I cannot say whether my observation prompted Alex to do a check he hadn't previously done but the course of actions that next take place results in match score being overturned which then places Middlesex in an awkward position. With Middlesex now expected to proceed to Final do they either:
a) Accept place thereby abide by the rules even if they feel harshly applied or even silly? For example what would have happened a players mobile phone gone off and they receive a penalty this way? Or player fails to meet C3.1 or C3.2? Does ECF Membership have same status as C3.1&3.2? Rule A.4 seems to say yes. Alternatively do they:
b) Reject place thus accept result on the day stands thereby making a mockery of the rules? A penalty is to be applied but don't worry about it?
Unlike some rules where a 'gentlemen's agreement can be reached, the one about ECF Membership is not one that the MC's can make a decision about whether to apply or not.
In short we are left with following question what is more important the spirit or the law of the game? From a personal point of view I believe you need both as you cannot support one over the other but when the two conflict which do you opt for?

As has been seen on the thread mentioned and internal discussion between the squad my personal dilemma becomes tangible when strong opinions were expressed for either position. This coupled with one or two disparaging comments is most disconcerting as I'm concerned the team solidarity and team spirit carefully nurtured over the past 5 years could be so quickly undone by forces beyond our control. Even stronger views are expressed by those who are not involved in the matter when it becomes public knowledge the rules rather than over the board play have influenced the outcome of a match. If there is no consensus at large how to decide between the two mutually exclusive positions since clearly one or other group will be clearly aggrieved? It may be easier to make this decision at a personal level but not so easy when one has to balance opposing views AND have the chess world monitor your move. Yes it is good and well talking hypothetically about what you would or would not do but I had to deal with it in actuality.

Consequently with disparate views presented and an appeal pending a neutral position was taken. It was decided both as a captain and as an Association that it was not for us to decide to accept or reject the rules as they stand as the situation that arose was not of own making - yes an innocent observation was made as archivist/historian NOT by way of protest or dissatisfaction as a match captain. My match report clearly does not make allusion to any wrong doing (intentional or other wise) at the time and a personal word of congratulations is indicative of no hard feelings. However Middlesex did say they would stand by the decision of an appeals panel. If the decision were made to reinstate score then Middlesex would not submit an counter-appeal.

As is now known an appeal was made by Kent and Appeals Committee heard it on 12th June; unfortunately for Kent it was rejected. Middlesex therefore in acting with integrity hereby abide by the Committee's decision and take up their place in the final. Again I state that with extreme views taken it is unlikely all will be satisfied with decision however with one being made as far as Middlesex are concerned the matter is now resolved.

However if there is insistence on prolonging this matter I would ask this,
1) When a result is final and a team is declared a winner where does it say that the non-winning team is to progress instead of the winning team? What justification is there? Would this not be setting a precedent?What are the ramifications of letting a non-winning team progressing to the following stage?
2) For the 2012-13 cycle are commentators happy for either no Final in Open Section to take place thereby Surrey to be declared winner since there is no opponent no not by default but because no opponent can be found? Since in some eyes neither Middlesex nor Kent can legitimately progress. Alternatively Surrey play 2 finals - Surrey vs. Kent (spirit of the game) and Surrey vs. Middlesex (law of the game) What happens if Surrey wins 1 and loses the other?
We could go round and round this issue but unlikely consensus reached, think PT Barnum "You can please ALL of the people NONE of the time."

Rather than focus on the outcome of this now closed matter I would instead ask you to consider the following points (in no specific order):
1) Does the official team sheet need to be submitted at all times where details of "membership end date" along with name, Membership number, grading information (code/grade) are completed by MC?
2) Do captains make ALL the appropriate checks prior to match? See point 1. Personally I intend to complete team by Thursday before match (both SCCU and National) including substitutes so that way I have contingencies covered does not always work but in the main team spirit has made this possible.
3) Does the Controller check ALL relevant details? Suggestion - For Finals Day the Controller usually asks for team lists on the eve on the match. Should this policy be followed for earlier rounds? The Online Result Service could be designed that each captain only inputs their information which cannot be seen by opposing captain UNTIL match score input. In this way MC and Controller aware of problems before match - see point 1 - and take steps to resolve.
4) When should the Controller make the relevant checks - before or after match? See point 3
5) What is the correct process for lodging a complaint? I just made a factual observation about something that is presumed checked anyway (see point2&3), does this constitute a protest?
6) When the question of what constitutes a formal complaint resolved in what timeframe should a complaint be made?
7) When complaint process underway how long to resolve?
Regarding 6&7 time is key factor. In this case it is to decide who one of the finalists are. In earlier rounds delays are critical as opponents need to know in good time who they are playing as venues need to be booked, for example had this situation occurred in the Kent vs. Staffordshire match I would have had no idea whether Middlesex would be travelling to Dartford to play Kent or Oxford as intermediate venue to play Staffordshire
When should penalties be applied? Has to be after match even if it overturns result. This is a potentiality that always exists which I'm sure all are aware of AND accept. It has to be after as you cannot breach a rule until match gets underway/completed as changes can be made before transgression occurs, for example in SF Kent v Mx Bd10 M. Wiltshire substitutes for C. Howell, however had check been done, James identified as ineligible when team list exchanged, had Howell been present Wiltshire would have been slotted in on Bd10. Yes it is a hypothetical but could have happened on the day. Again application of penalties dependent on points 1&2&3
9) What timeframe should penalties be applied? It was noted with interest that until I made the observation on 9th June about James no other player had been identified as being ineligible due to lapsed ECF Membership, penalties were then applied retrospectively one of which incidentally included Kent vs Staffordshire QF match. Luckily the application did not affect any results see point 3 above.
10) What penalties should be applied? Is it more practical to have a sliding scale of penalties?
11) Should the Online Results Service be refined so that issues attracting penalty can be automatically applied?
11) Can ECF Membership be retrospective? If so what timeframe would be appropriate? Links to penalties, namely, if joins before Monday immediately after match financial penalty appropriate - note a National Stage match can also be played on Sunday after the default date thus this time can be used to update membership.
12) Should there be a clause that specifically addresses what should happen in the event the application of a penalty or penalties overturns the result of match, e.g., If time allows should a match result that is overturned by the rules be deemed null and void and replayed?
I'm sure there are others but this is a good start.

Anyway I hope this account gives insight to my and in part Middlesex CA perspective on the matter. We maintain and still maintain that the situation was one to be resolved between Kent and ECF and Middlesex had to maintain neutral stance as to promote one over the other was to make a statement of support to one or other when in fact both needed our support.

Finally, it would be good if a statement from Kent CA is likewise proffered as that way the 'voice' of all parties in this matter are heard and as a result can once and for all close this matter so that we can all move on in a positive and constructive way and not let this issue drag us down.

Regards

Anthony
Middlesex Open and u180 Captain

[Richard Bates]

I have received a response from the Middx captain - see below (italics). As he does not wish to join the forum (I can understand why) I don't intend to be an intermediary on this again.

<SNIP>
[/i]

I can understand why. The quality, clarity, and comprehensive nature of his posting would put the rest of us to shame.

[Angus French]

So, for the benefit of future generations of MCCA members and chess historians, the Middlesex captain queried the absense of an entry for the Kent player on the membership list?

[Peter Ackley]

Angus

One of the responsibilities of the Middlesex MC is to ensure Middlesex match records are complete

They wouldn't be complete if there was missing data, would they?

In addition the match result sheet has a column for membership number. What would you suggest a captain does if one isn't available?

[Angus French]

If (all of) it was approved in the April 2012 Finance Council meeting, why isn't that recorded in the minutes when other, arguably more minor, changes for the County Championships are?

I did attend the April 2012 meeting though I can't comment on the minutes as I didn't produce them, and I was not present at the subsequent meeting which did approve them. That said, one must start at the beginning, with is to look at what was actually put to Council.

Council is invited to provide comments on proposed changes to the County Championship rules to take effect for the 2012/13 season.

Council was not asked to approve (or otherwise) the proposed rule changes, it was merely invited to comment. Of course, the Director took note of these comments when finalising the 2012/13 rules.

I thought the timeline clear enough. The April 2012 meeting approved, perhaps by default, the general principle of requiring membership for the national stages ....

I think that's broadly right. As I recall, no adverse comments were made about the requirement to be an ECF member in the final stages. The proposals did not mention penalties (I suspect) because the rules already provided for penalties for playing an ineligible player.

Thanks for this Sean.

I take the points that:
1. Council was asked to comment on rather than to approve the proposed rules;
2. The proposed rules were for the 2012/13 competition - and would not affect the national stages of the 2011/12 competition which, at the time of the meeting, had yet to take place.

As I've said previously, I don't recall any discussion of the proposed rule A4 which, as presented, had no reference to the penalty clause.
Presumably the Controller at the time - although I see Sean has referred to 'the Director' taking note of comments - decided:
1. To include rule A4, although it may not have been discussed at the Council meeting;
2. To add a reference in rule A4 to penalty clause C3.3, thereby deciding that a non-ECF member should be treated as an ineligible player and despite the fact that this wasn't in the proposal on which Council was asked to comment.

[Roger de Coverly]

So, for the benefit of future generations of MCCA members and chess historians, the Middlesex captain queried the absense of an entry for the Kent player on the membership list?

It was someone who had previously been a member probably for several years. Rather than asking Kent to rectify matters by getting a membership fee paid, the Controller elected to default the player thereby changing the match result. It's partly down to a presumably incomplete specification of the computer system used for the results, or an implementation that didn't refresh the membership list. If it had checked not just for presence on a list, but presence on a list and membership expiry date after the match date, the problems would have been detected earlier. Equally if the system had allowed match captains to input and check their players before the match, the problem could have been averted.

Steve Giddens (of Kent) is no longer commenting, but the Middlesex victory is quite plainly the fault of the ECF's compulsory membership scheme.

I think the ECF can be accused of inconsistency. If it looks carefully, it will find the 4NCL breaking the ECF's rules on having to be a member to have results FIDE rated.

[Jonathan Rogers]

So, for the benefit of future generations of MCCA members and chess historians, the Middlesex captain queried the absense of an entry for the Kent player on the membership list?

It does seem so, even after reading the Middlesex captain's version (for which he must be thanked for providing).

If I read it correctly, then one might think that there was a genuine misunderstanding; the Middlesex queried the point because he was trying to get his historic records straight, but Alex H mistook the query for a challenge.

If that is right, then I could certainly understand why Alex might have interpreted the query as a polite form of challenge. The query did come from the Middlesex captain, and does the history of the MCA really require an accurate record of the opposition's ECF membership numbers?!

[PeterFarr]

I have received a response from the Middx captain - see below (italics). As he does not wish to join the forum (I can understand why) I don't intend to be an intermediary on this again.

<SNIP>
[/i]

I can understand why. The quality, clarity, and comprehensive nature of his posting would put the rest of us to shame.

Completely agree. I don't see how the Middlesex captain can be blamed in any way; he is in a practically impossible position. It would no doubt be a great sporting gesture if the Middlesex team were to withdraw in favour of Kent, but that would be very easy to say from the outside, and again I don't think Middlesex can be blamed for sticking to the rules.

the Middlesex victory is quite plainly the fault of the ECF's compulsory membership scheme.

Though the situation wouldn't have arisen without it, this isn't the fault of the membership scheme; its the fault of an inappropriate sanction for failing to renew membership, which seems to excessively punish an administrative error, and has thereby had the unintended consequence of tarnishing the competition.

I also have sympathy for the tournament controller and for the appeals committee - it seems they acted consistently in applying the rules (OK the retrospective action on the QF results can be criticized) and its a very dangerous precedent to start applying a discretionary approach. The basic problem is that "the law is an ass" (however the penalty rules were arrived at, which seems a little obscure), which the appeals committee more or less seem to have acknowledged by implication.

For next year the solution is simple - impose a financial sanction and not a sporting one for this type of transgression. For this year, it seems to late to do anything now, which is a great pity.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I agree with most of Peter's comments, except that there still seems to be some dispute whether there was really a Council-approved rule in the first place.

Certainly I don't much blame the Middlesex captain. Quite possibly one half of his team accepts that they lost whilst the other half of the team, if forced to express their views, might take the view that if they won according to the rules, then so be it. As he says himself, it is something of a metaphysical question what to do when the spirit of the competition conflicts completely with the rules.

But this is why I asked yesterday whether he consulted his players before challenging the result. It seems not and instead we are left with the rather messy answer that although he raised the crucial membership point, he hadn't intended to challenge the match result.

What a mess!

[Angus French]

I agree with most of Peter's comments, except that there still seems to be some dispute whether there was really a Council-approved rule in the first place.

Certainly I don't much blame the Middlesex captain. Quite possibly one half of his team accepts that they lost whilst the other half of the team, if forced to express their views, might take the view that if they won according to the rules, then so be it. As he says himself, it is something of a metaphysical question what to do when the spirit of the competition conflicts completely with the rules.

But this is why I asked yesterday whether he consulted his players before challenging the result. It seems not and instead we are left with the rather messy answer that although he raised the crucial membership point, he hadn't intended to challenge the match result.

What a mess!

I don't blame the Middlesex captain either. In an earlier comment, in my opinionated way, I picked up on something which was stated which I thought was hogwash.

I am concerned, instead, about the actions of the Controller of the event as it seems that:
1. The Controller, and not Council, was responsible for rules which seem to me to be Draconian and which have seriously affected this year's competition;
2. The Controller didn't own up to (1) and allowed blame to be unfairly cast in the direction of Council.

FWIW, there is another matter concerning the national stages of the County Championships which hasn't been reported in this thread. An appeal was made against the draw for Open section of the competition. An alternative and better draw (I and others believe) was proposed (which kept the two northern teams in separate halves of the draw and which gave the second SCCU county a less hard draw on paper than the third SCCU county). The appeal was summarily dismissed by the Controller as it was submitted three days after the announcement of the draw - a day late under the rules (though there was nothing to stop a redraw).

[Peter Ackley]

Jonathan

I fail to see the messy part of Anthony's answer. He was REPORTING a match result (NOT making a CHALLENGE to the match result) and some information wasn't available which the form asked to be submitted (which you refer to as 'the membership point'). As any good captain would do, when submitting an incomplete results form, you would give as much information as possible relating to the incomplete part. Why, exactly, would a captain consult their players when REPORTING a match result?

Many of the emails relating to this were CCd to the whole Middlesex mailing list - it is to these that I refer in the following.

Over the 16-boards the view was unanimous - the result was a win for Kent. When it came to the appeal the view was unanimous - it was between Kent and the ECF; Middlesex were not involved. When it comes to the result of the match no-one felt Middlesex 'won' the match; rather Kent have been told they have 'lost' the match under the application of the rules (or, given the last 14 pages, should this be 'rules'?).

As Tony aludes, the difficult part is what should Middlesex do about this. Here is where opinion differs. Options being stated were summed up by Tony. No-one from Middlesex seems to think 'so be it'; rather that this is a no-win situation but we have to... do something.

My view (and I don't need to be forced to express it) is that Kent won over the 16 boards. In terms of the match itself... I don't know. I don't think I can get off the fence on this one. If required I'll play in Warwickshire although I won't be calling the match a final. Some people have strong views other ways. I shan't be criticising them for this.