2013 Final Stage

[Neil Graham]

I do not know the answer to that question

I'm quite amazed by that. You are a major advocate of membership which when compulsory quite obviously increases the chance that a player will be deemed ineligible through non-membership or non-renewal. You don't have a view on whether this is a desirable outcome. By contrast, I have a very strong view on this that such match changing penalties are a by-product of a compulsory membership system as the ECF are demonstrating with the Counties Championship.

As your county doesn't compete in the Counties Championship, I fail to see why you have a very strong view on the Rules of that competition. You have a strong view on compulsory membership which we have heard innumerable times in the past.

[IM Jack Rudd]

such a review will take place with the guidance of other ECF officials, the Board or Council, and the current strategy will be altered.

I would have though a series of measures to reduce the involvement of the Controller.

In the Open, anyone can play, and board order challenges have to be made by the offended county before the match starts.

In the grade restricted sections, eligibility is determined by grade in either the January or the July list and only players ungraded in both have to be cleared. (This actually extends the number of people potentially eligible to play) You would need a rule for checking the under 180 average requirement for the Minor Counties.

Financially, the entry fee is £ x per team plus £ y per player per match who isn't an ECF member or is an expired one.

That is a genuinely constructive set of suggestions; I do not know as yet whether any of them will make it into the rules, but thank you for offering them.

[Roger de Coverly]

I fail to see why you have a very strong view on the Rules of that competition.

It's a more general point that team competitions and compulsory membership can be incompatible, a point that the ECF Counties Competition has demonstrated quite admirably.

[John Swain]

John Swain wrote:

I have enjoyed playing in the Notts U180 team for a few years now, following several years of county-team inactivity whilst my daughter was growing up, but I see little point in giving up most of a Saturday driving from Nottingham to Milton Keynes, Peterborough or wherever, for the whole match result to be reversed by the Monday due to some technicality.

I would be very surprised if a Notts team captained by Neil Graham were to fall foul of the rules.

I have always had complete confidence in Neil Graham and others who have recently organised Notts U180 teams. But clearly mistakes do happen, and if we had lost a match fair-and-square on the Saturday, I would not be happy to receive the news on the Monday that the opposing team had fallen foul of the membership rules and that we were through to the next round on a technicality.

[Peter Ackley]

Roger

How would challenges have to be made by the offended county before the match starts? This would only work if team lists, as per AF's suggestions, were exchanged a 'reasonable' period of time before the match. This would, therefore, ensure opposing teams had the time (should they wish) to confirm their opponent's status.

Maybe something along the lines of (slight modification of your suggestions):

-Team fees a (payable before commencement of the first match within the competition)
-Controller to verify match result within b days of the match
-Non-ECF member game fee to ECF and/or (re)joining of non-ECF members within c days of the finish of the match (subject to above)
-Ungraded players to be cleared by controller for grading limited sections d period of time before match; evidence of ungraded player(s) strength in open to be submitted with results

[Neil Graham]

John Swain wrote:

I have enjoyed playing in the Notts U180 team for a few years now, following several years of county-team inactivity whilst my daughter was growing up, but I see little point in giving up most of a Saturday driving from Nottingham to Milton Keynes, Peterborough or wherever, for the whole match result to be reversed by the Monday due to some technicality.

I would be very surprised if a Notts team captained by Neil Graham were to fall foul of the rules.

Without wishing to milk that compliment too much and without wishing to mention yesterday's match!

In order to clarify this :-

All players were checked for membership before we started the finals; membership was paid for those not on the ECF list.
All players were checked on the ECF Grading List; those who did not have a current grade in July 2012 were cleared through the Controller and a grade allocated.
Every team was cleared on the 10 point rule when I typed up the sheets.
On Friday night before the match I again checked that all registrations were in place and up to date on the ECF website.

This is as well as selecting the team, sorting out the transport; arranging or confirming the venue/refreshments etc.

I have no idea why the captain of the team penalised didn't check the eligibility of his players. On the result sheet you have to enter the membership number which means you must refer to the ECF Membership List anyway.

The Controller issued a proper set of instructions which all captains should have been aware of. The fact that penalties were correctly issued in earlier rounds ought to have made everyone doubly vigilant that their teams were properly constituted.

[PeterFarr]

I'm quite amazed by that. You are a major advocate of membership which when compulsory quite obviously increases the chance that a player will be deemed ineligible through non-membership or non-renewal. You don't have a view on whether this is a desirable outcome. By contrast, I have a very strong view on this that such match changing penalties are a by-product of a compulsory membership system as the ECF are demonstrating with the Counties Championship.

Well this can be very simply disproved by changing the rules so that there is a financial penalty rather than a sporting one for ineligibilty. For example "where a player is found not to be a member at the time of playing the match, a penalty of £xx will be imposed, along with the requisite membership fee, to be paid within xx days of the discovery of the infringement" - ok well no doubt it needs proper drafting, but hey presto, I have clearly demonstrated that match changing penalties are not a consequence of compulsory membership. Simples.

To put it another way, just because the ECF have apparently shot themselves in the foot over this, doesn't prove that it necessarily had to happen. There were ways to avoid it (even easier to see with hindsight of course) and ways to stop it happening again.

[Roger de Coverly]

How would challenges have to be made by the offended county before the match starts? This would only work if team lists, as per AF's suggestions, were exchanged a 'reasonable' period of time before the match. This would, therefore, ensure opposing teams had the time (should they wish) to confirm their opponent's status.

Was it Lancashire who fielded a player without a 2012 grade? They put him in the team using his 2011 grade. For this, they were penalised.

In an Open competition, you should be able to play anyone without prior notification. The board order issue could be done when team lists are exchanged and it might need them to be exchanged the day before the match. The general principle is that if a match starts without a board order protest, it's out of time. The competition does require a certain amount of mutual goodwill to run smoothly.

I might even suggest that an ungraded player be allowed to play in a grade restricted competition provided the opposing match captain agreed to it and the controller would not penalise the team. But checking the most recent two grading lists and asking for permission when in neither is simple enough.

[Jonathan Rogers]

On the 18th page, I am still not much the wiser as to how necessary it is for Council to have approved the exact penalty regime for this year's comptition. Some are calling the rules "rules", as though they had official endorsement, but Neil, for example, refers to the Controller issuing "instructions". And the recommendation of the appeal committee that the rule (if that is what it is) should be reconsidered by the Director is also of interest - why no mention of Council?

[David Pardoe]

As the old addage says...rules are for the guidance of the wise and blind obedience of fools..
I seem to remember when my ECF membership ran out in November of a previous year, I got a written reminder from the ECF which said that my renewal was due and if not renewed by the end of month, then my membership would be offficially deemed to have lapsed.
That seemed perfectly reasonable. Did anything similar happen here..?
It is quite normal in situations like this to give some period of grace before bringing down the guilotine..
And particularly where you are dealing with a `customer` who is long standing and known to be likely to renew.
I think that a discretion should be applicable to all such rules, which allows the `controller` some leaway in interpreting and applying rules fairly, and in the interests of fair play.
Otherwise, the controller is always in a difficult position of having to follow what may be poorly drafted or incomplete rules.

[David Sedgwick]

I have no idea why the captain of the team penalised didn't check the eligibility of his players. On the result sheet you have to enter the membership number which means you must refer to the ECF Membership List anyway.

He did, but he had failed to appreciate that subscriptions might expire mid competition and hence that people who were members at the time he drew up his squad might have ceased to be so by the date of a match.

The Controller issued a proper set of instructions which all captains should have been aware of.

I don't think they gave any warning of this trap.

The fact that penalties were correctly issued in earlier rounds ought to have made everyone doubly vigilant that their teams were properly constituted.

Penalties were not issued in a timely fashion for this particular breach. Instead we had the bizarre situation of the quarter final scores being adjusted after the semi finals had taken place.

Hence Kent were deprived of the opportunity to be doubly vigilant and this was one of their grounds of appeal. It cut no ice with the Appeal Committee.

[Roger de Coverly]

I have no idea why the captain of the team penalised didn't check the eligibility of his players. On the result sheet you have to enter the membership number which means you must refer to the ECF Membership List anyway.

There was the subtle trap, that a player can have an ECF membership number without the membership being paid up to date.

The Controller issued a proper set of instructions which all captains should have been aware of. The fact that penalties were correctly issued in earlier rounds ought to have made everyone doubly vigilant that their teams were properly constituted.

Except this didn't happen. It was the Middlesex captain who uncovered the issue that the results software didn't appear to be checking current membership status. It's the practice of the ECF Office to leave expired memberships on the downloadable list for a period, not sure how long, after expiry. So merely finding someone's name on a list isn't proof of an up to date paid for membership.

[Sean Hewitt]

I do not believe that I am wrong (or Jonathan Rogers is wrong either) in relation to your first point.

There is a danger that the Committee's unanimous recommendations are being undermined by your unilateral pronouncements. Your willingness to engage in debate on the Forum is appreciated, but maybe you need to consult with other Committee members before responding further, if at all?

Are you for real? I mean, how sanctimonious can you get? I know what was said by the appeals committee because I was there and you don't, because you weren't.

Yet you believe that you are not wrong and have the audacity suggest that I should consult with my colleagues to clarify what we agreed.

Unbelievable.

[Roger de Coverly]

And the recommendation of the appeal committee that the rule (if that is what it is) should be reconsidered by the Director is also of interest - why no mention of Council?

I would have thought it of sufficient general interest that it's bound to come up at the AGM. That is unless there's some other point of dispute. The Directors will no doubt complain about Council micromanaging but the Directors should be prepared to listen to county associations and players about the organisation of matches and the involvement of controllers in determining the outcome of matches.

Like the parallel issue of the Junior competitions, it's something that could have been discussed in April, as the topic of concessions and exemptions was on the agenda.

[Sean Hewitt]

And the recommendation of the appeal committee that the rule (if that is what it is) should be reconsidered by the Director is also of interest - why no mention of Council?

Because it is the Director who sets the rules, rather than Council. In 2012, the views of Council were sought before the rules were changed, which seems a perfectly sensible approach.

Unfortunately, as the last two Council meetings have shown, the County Championships have not previously been high on Council's list of priorities.