Friday, 20 December 2013

Does nominating teams matter in today's SCCA leagues?

This article has been written by David Green (Stowmarket)


It appears that nominating teams using player’s names and grades no longer commits those nominated players to play a single game for the team for which they were nominated.

We are half way through the season and, according to the grading database, a total of nine players across the three Suffolk league divisions have not made an appearance for the team for which they were nominated.

I feel that this is not right.   Am I right?   I hope to show in this article that the rules are being breached but there is some doubt because the rules lack the required clarity.

Let us now look at the Rule Book for guidance.   I have added words in italics where I feel the rules need to be amended.

Rule 20.   "Each club will provide a list of nominated players with grades for each team entered in the League.   A player may be nominated for different clubs, provided these nominations are for teams that play in different divisions.   If a club plays a match without having nominated any players then for the purposes of these rules that club shall be deemed to have nominated the four players who took part in the match and in the same board order."

Rule 21a.   "Nominations for a team can be changed at any time of the season by notifying the Competitions Secretary (at least) a day before the match.   Details of nominated players will be published by the Competitions Secretary."   (timescale?)

Rule 21b.   "Nominated players should play (for the team for which they are nominated) during the season.   If this is unlikely then a different player should be nominated."

This is a very wishy washy rule; for a start the question of where in the SCCA competitions the player has to play to be compliant arises.   Specifying this as the team for which they are nominated would make this rule clearer.

1)   “Should” implies an aspiration not a compulsion.   So what happens if the rule is ignored as widely as it is at the moment?
2)   Is one appearance during each half of the season enough to meet this “should” aspiration?
3)   If more than one appearance is needed to meet the aspirations in rule 21 then who decides what number of games a nominated player “should” play to avoid the need for either renomination or the risk of being sanctioned for a breach of the rules.

The rule also expresses the aspiration that a team is expected to nominate someone else to replace a nominated player who is for any reason unable to play during the season.

How is this to be enforced or does it not matter that the rule is being ignored?
What sanctions are to be applied for failing to meet the aspiration expressed in this rule?

On these issues the rule book is silent.   So do we:

a)   Need rule 21b at all if we are going to ignore its aspirations?
b)   Accept that we need the control this rule aspires to produce and then come to an agreement as to how many games are required to meet the expectation expressed here?
c)   How is the rule to be enforced?   We need to decide, if enforcement action is required, then who does the enforcement and what sanctions need to be made available to ensure compliance with any enforcement instructions?

Rule 22.   "Players must be bona fide club members.   No player may be nominated by a club for more than one team at the same time."

This must follow from Rule 10 where substitutes must be bona fide members of the club for which they are to play and Rule 20 where nominated players must be club members.   Thus there are only two classes of player: nominated and substitute, so that means Rule 22 part 1 adds nothing to our rules that is not covered elsewhere.

Rule 22 could then include the following to make the action required by the competitions secretary and the clubs crystal clear: if a player is nominated for more than one team for the same club in the Suffolk leagues then the competitions secretary will reject this incorrect nomination and ask for a nomination that meets this rule.

Rule 10 states that substitutes in the event of “unavoidable absences” have to be bona fide (NOT F.I.D.E.)   (Just replace the Latin with "genuine or authentic") members of the club".

“Unavoidable absences”. This phrase restricts the ability of clubs to rest players or to play other members who wish to play in the league as these “absences” of the nominated players are voluntary and clearly are not “unavoidable” so here the rule is too prescriptive.

Rule 27 deals with the idea of ineligibility.   It appears logical that a contravention of the aspirations of any rule relating to nominations should be those associated with ineligibility.

However all the time that we seek to make these rules more formal and binding we must not lose sight of the need to play for and win the league title over the chess board and not in the “stewards room”.

Maybe we can discuss this all at the Suffolk AGM or at a committee meeting so that the new competitions secretary, who will have to be found to replace Mike McNaughton when he relinquishes his post at the end of this season, has a set of non-wishy washy rules we have all agreed and agree to obey.

Members of Suffolk clubs are invited to comment on any aspect(s) of this article by clicking the link below



23 comments:

  1. Yes I agree wholeheartedly. It's the same in the Bury league. What's the point in nominating a squad at the start of the season and then you just pick and choose who the hell who want? You shouldn't be allowed to pinch other players from other clubs/teams whenever you feel like it. It makes the league a complete farce. It's OK if you play for more than one team as long as they're in different divisions but if they're in the same division then it shouldn't be allowed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. who are the nine nominated players who have not played, guess Bury or Ipswich

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello,
      I am not going to name and shame but a study of the database and the nominations list issued by Mike McNaughton will reveal all.
      Regards
      David Green

      Delete
    2. There's no 'shame' - it's no one's fault or error.

      Delete
    3. Apologies to all concerned.

      Shame: An unfortunate choice of words on my part, Bob.

      I wish to leave the debate open and not take either side but just make sure the rules are clear.

      However the competition secretary has seen fit to go into print on the subject and circulate the affected clubs saying that there appears to be something amiss in his view and there are some firm views supporting his position expressed in the comments above.

      So let a healthy non-emotive debate on the meaning and requirements of the nomination rules begin.

      Regards

      David Green

      Delete
  3. Where is the nominations list published

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John Lambert - Clacton22 December 2013 at 09:45

      I was given a list in Nov but that was incorrect, also Mike has sent me an email concerning a Clacton player who was nominated but not played as Clacton has only one team then no benefit arises, where as Bury in the same email had three players nominated but not played, Bury were using this to advantage by playing players nominated to other teams as their subs. Like an incident lasts season concerning non registerted players there is no penalty

      Delete
    2. David Green ( terrainaeration@aol.com)22 December 2013 at 12:14

      Hi John,

      I don't think it matters whether benefit arises or not.

      The rules are unclear and if we wish to see our interpretation, whatever it may be, enforced then we need to clear up the rules and provide an enforcement penalty.

      It is clear the posting by Bob Jones, the Bury and SCCA secretary and a million other good things for Suffolk chess including this very forum, thinks otherwise than you. I hope everyone respects Bob both personally and for his work in Suffolk Chess. Mud slinging at Bury is therefore hardly appropriate although understandable sometimes
      .
      Lets just keep our collective cool and plod through the process required to clarify the rules so that we can all refer to something accurate and concise to decide one way or the other if any club's activity is compliant or non-compliant with the rules as written.

      Later in the season I will be publishing a proposal to go forward to the AGM that will clean up the rule book and I would welcome your contribution to that task.

      I feel that doing nothing will result in endless wrangling and a deal of ill feeling which I guess we can all live without.

      Best wishes and Happy Christmas.

      David Green


      Delete
  4. This has been an interesting discussion so far. I'm all in favour of clarity. And if the rules are clear, I'm happy that infringements should be penalised. But as to what those rules should be ... well, I don't exactly know.

    I'd like the teams to have some sort of "identity" and obviously there should be some mechanism to prevent a club from routinely playing the same four players in several different teams (or less extreme versions of the same thing). And it can seem a little absurd when I play for a one Bury side and against another Bury side that someone who was a team-mate in one match can now be my opponent. However the current nomination system certainly doesn't prevent this. It wouldn't even prevent it if only the nominated players are eligible since there is no limit on the frequency of renomination.

    Now while I don't much like excessive change within a team, I think there are very understandable reasons why captains cannot get the same team to play in all the fixtures. Life is busy. I have other commitments, my family have commitments, and the same goes for most chess players. Several players refuse to play more than once a week, and for good reasons juniors generally play almost exclusively home fixtures. Moreover, I suspect that if we make the rules very strict in this regard we'll either end up with many more games being defaulted or many more matches being rescheduled to ensure that nominated players are used as often as possible.

    When Stephen Pride "retired" from his long service as the BACL Match Secretary, he made some astute comments about the league existing to encourage the playing of chess, reminding us that a rule book which got in the way of that wouldn't be serving its purpose. It would be unfortunate to have rules that discourage chess or prevent clubs from entering an extra team simply because they worry that the nomination system would work against them.

    Can the current rule 24 (which begins "A player cannot play more than three games for more than one team in a division.") do all the necessary work for us? Or perhaps a modified version of this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David Green ( terrainaeration@aol.com)22 December 2013 at 22:52

      Hi Steve,

      Thanks for your comment,

      Playing against your fellow club members who were on your side in an earlier match does seem bizarre but is a result of the two large clubs in Bury and Ipswich that dominate an otherwise rather rural area.

      Rule 24 is entirely about multiple teams from one club in the same division as it is expressly forbidden under rule 23 for a player to play for two different clubs in the same division. That means the rule applies almost entirely to Bury and Ipswich.

      I totally agree with Stephen Pride's comments as I think I made clear in my original article where I said that play over the board is the only way to win the league not in the stewards' room.

      I take on board the problems of outside commitments to family and work, We at Stowmarket have club members who work shifts with cyclical unavailability and Franceys Allen and I have to combine the demands of our businesses with playing league chess. My club members also prefer to play on only one night a week during the season. Not easy when there are Suffolk League, Bury League, Roger Goldsmith, the knockout U125 and U145 competitions Ladies chess and an all play all club championship to shoehorn into the season.

      I do like your idea that a team should have some identity. In the division 3 round up on this website Bob Jones was somewhat wistful when praising Ipswich E for a consistent side throughout the season with 23 of the 24 games played by the same people in sharp comparison with his own Bury E side which had played 11 different players in the 24 games. Does this help? Well maybe as Bury E are bottom and Ipswich E are top of the league.

      The Ipswich E side is perhaps the ideal and the Bury E side is at the other extreme so a happy medium with about 6 different players in 24 games seems about right. My team have used 6 players so far and we have a team with an identity that has some spirit building within it.

      I have just concluded an interesting correspondence with Bob Jomes on the subject of the rules and how much control I personally think is needed. I said I would play anyone in the league and enjoy it even if it was against the local cat.

      So I will go on with my work to prepare a proposal for rule change in that light and hope we can agree something clear and concise that does not hamper chess play in Suffolk.

      As a part of this revision process I have looked at the league rules of Oxfordshire, North Essex and London leagues and all three of these rule books are draconian in their demands and penalties compared to the current SCCA rules.

      All that said the Suffolk rules have been patched up for many years without perhaps an overview of how the patches integrate with each other.

      The results website has not been well integrated with the existing rule book and is not compliant with the rules about no retrospective grade changes. Here it is the rule not the superb website that needs changing.

      The lowest board default rule has some strange consequences when combined with the 30 minutes late and you lose rule.

      These specific bits need sorting and should not be contraversial but clearly the nomination rules are capable of being interpreted in very, very different ways with some strongly entrenched views being held as shown by the comments above.

      Which view is right is up to the SCCA chess community to decide, I will offer some suggestions and proposals for a clean up of the rules to make them consistent internally and hopefully clear.

      The SCCA membership must decide on the degree of restriction that is required from the rule book. I would urge soft touch regulation but look where that got us when applied to the banks!

      Thanks again to all for their contributions. Please, please let me know your views any way you can and come to the AGM where all rule changes have to be agreed.

      Happy Christmas.

      Regards
      David Green

      Delete
  5. The subject of nominations has always been contentious. But in response to your earlier comment David, i believe it DOES matter if a team benefits from incorrectly nominating it's players. After all, that is the reason why we have the nomination system.
    Rule 21b was written to let secretaries and captains know what is expected of them when they nominate their teams. It was agreed that clubs would be strongly encouraged to be realistic about who is likely to play and should not try to gain a tactical advantage by nominating other high graded club players instead. It was felt that there should be no sanction if nominated players did not play, but clubs would be expected to renominate.
    Over the years most clubs have nominated players who will play regularly for their teams....but there are exceptions. So as the issue has resurfaced, i have done a bit of homework to try and establish exactly where the problem lies. Here is a list of the number of games that nominated players have played for their teams so far this season, based on the nominations list of 2/10/13....
    Division 1
    Ipswich A - 20/20 - 100%
    Manningtree - 16/16 - 100%
    Ipswich C - 11/12 - 92%
    Ipswich B - 12/16 - 75%
    Bury A - 9/20 - 45%
    Bury B - 7/20 - 35%
    Division 2
    Saxmundham A - 15/16 - 94%
    Adastral - 18/20 - 90%
    Sudbury - 17/20 - 85%
    Ipswich D - 13/20 - 65%
    Stowmarket A - 10/16 - 63%
    Bury C - 11/20 - 55%
    Division 3
    Ipswich E - 23/24 - 96%
    Saxmundham B - 21/24 - 88%
    Manningtree B - 18/24 - 75%
    Stowmarket B - 17/24 - 71%
    Felixstowe - 11/24 - 46%
    Bury D - 11/24 - 46%
    Clacton - 9/24 - 38%
    Everyone can draw their own conclusions from this, but as Bury A and Bury B both have 2 nominated players that havent played a game for their respective teams, i personally feel they should renominate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Rob ,

      Thanks for your comment. You give us all an insight into how the rule makers were thinking when they drew up rules for nomination and Rule 21b in particular

      Rule 21b. Nominated players should play during the season. If this is unlikely then a different player should be nominated.

      Your analysis shows that Bury teams are in the lower percentage scores in every division but this is not just a Bury matter As our biggest club, sorry Ipswich if you are actually bigger, it would be expected that there would be a possibility for more churning around of teams in Bury than at smaller clubs. Bury however have a nominee who is according to the ECF database, a Cambridge player, he may also be a Bury member but according to the results database he is inactive in the Suffolk league while playing in other leagues and congresses.

      Again data on the results database shows that Clacton nominated a player who was inactive last season and has not played league chess this season and Manningtree nominated a player who has played just 2 EACU games this season and none in the leagues.

      The second part of the rule refers to re-nomination if a nominated player is unlikely to play and how much more unlikely to play do you have to be for Bury,Clacton and Manningtree to be expected to renominate?

      I don't think it matters if there are genuine reasons why these nominated players are unavailable. They are unavailable and that is all that matters.

      This is why Mike McNaughton has written to the clubs to persuade them of the need to do what is expected.

      However the rule does not help Mike's cause because it does not set a minimum number of games either in the season or in any half season that a nominated player is expected to play.

      Rob is correct, there is also no sanction available so the SCCA community now has to decide what they wish to do, if anything, if Mike's gentle persuasion fails to get the action that the rules only expect.

      I guess that is why I started this whole discussion.

      regards
      David Green




      Regards
      David Green

      Delete
  6. I,m glad to see Rob has joined the discussion. Rob took over from me when I resigned as Comp. Sec. One of the reason I resigned was the disregard of the then scant rules by a club. Since then new rules have been formulated which are beset with problems. We have a wishy washy set regarding nominations, last season we had a set which defined regulation, this rule was broken and the rule was scrapped. You quote draconian rules in other associations. In NECL we don't have these disputes being aired in public because their rules work. The competition secretary has just finished a ten year stint to become Junior Chess Officer, he has not had to put up with the problems that our officers have endured. Perhaps we should follow NECL rules. Base ours on a fee being taken on player registration, strict rules on eligibility of players playing for specific teams, rather than nominations and team fees. With regard to the Clacton player referred to I have responded to Mike's email and am awaiting his reply. Again with only one team no benefit arises, we appear to come out badly in Rob;s analysis but this is down to trying to let a large number of players play in Suffolk. There is NO attempt to gain advantage, infact it has worked against us by fielding weaker teams.

    John

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hello John,

    I detect some support for re-drafting the rules in your comment. Words like wishy washy and scant when used to describe the SCCA rules reflect my opinion. Add excessively wordy, badly phrased, poorly intergrated and patchy and that sums up why l have felt the need to spent many hours drafting amendments to get the existing rules in some semblance of order.

    I appreciate the softly softly approach favoured by Rob but if it results in vague rules that can be freely ignored without any consequential action being taken then there seems to be no sense in having the rule book at all.

    If it is the general will of the SCCA as expressed at the AGM to continue with the rules as they are we must both respect that opinion. Sounding out the wider opinion of those interested club members and players who do not go to the AGM and here I include myself havng been to a handful of AGM's in the last 30 years or so, is rather difficult.

    My article is acting as I hoped it would by stimulating some discussion..

    I had been thinking about replacing Mike when he retires but on closer investigation his job is all but impossible without some rule changes.

    My own Stowmarket B team has a 71% rating but this is due to playing Franceys Allen on board 4 instead of his wife Vicky. With about 3 grading points difference, Franceys is the lower, there is hardly a tactical advantage here. My team use some substitute players for a variety of reasons, shift work for some means a regular unavailability, business commitments for me have to take priority over chess, introducing other club members to formal league chess etc. etc. All that is just normal variety to deal with our members outside commitments but the general requirement of the rule stands and is that the nominated players should play whenever available and this we at Stowmarket endeavour to do.

    Putting this all into words without restricting our lower teams from playing substitutes who just want to play chess but do not normally get nominated is not easy.

    As I said before I welcome your contribution and have followed up by asking Melvin for your e-mail address and leavng mine and my telephone number for you if you wish to chat about your views on my proposal for an in depth revision of rules 1 to 29.
    Regards
    David Green

    ReplyDelete
  8. Following John's mention on the NECL rules, I went to do some reading (here). The relevant rules seem to be rules 20, 21 and (especially) 22.

    Unfortunately, I'm not sure I understand the rules. They are fairly complex (especially 22(c)), and at least the word "nomination" appears in several places, though the concept looks rather different than that which operates in the SCCA and BACL leagues with which I'm familiar. NECL 22(b) needs some explanation. Can anyone clarify it for me? Given that each match is played across four boards does "the number of players equal to one fewer than the number of boards in the club's 'A' team" just mean "three players"? If not, who determines that number (or the number of boards in the club's 'A' team) and how? The answer may be there in the rules, but I can't see it.

    Once I'm clearer on that, I may have a few further thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Steve, for all it's advantages in some respects, present NECL rule 22 wording is ooutdated and overly cumbersome (IMO) for what it covers, and why I have suggested a re-write.
      See here and here.

      Delete
  9. It's not two difficult Steve, a club registers as many players as it wishes, paying a fee for each player, the first 3 on the list can only play for the A team. Any four players can play for the A team taken from the registered list. The second 3 can only play for the A or B teams, the third three can only play for the A, B or C teams. Subs can be used but you can't play down. Prior to this season it was the first 4 who could only play for the A and the second 4 could only play for A & B and so on. The previous years rule four would be better for SCCA as we have two very large clubs. There was also a provision which allowed clubs to field teams of equal strength like Ipswich or Bury may divide there top four graded players between A & B but once allocated they would not cross over as subs, this was removed this season as it had never been used by any club. The top clubs in NECL tend to be smaller than say Ipswich or Bury and would play their top four as their A team. If They need a sub it would come from any other on the registered list. Does that make sense if not email me and I may be able to help using a spreadsheet.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks John, that's pretty much how I was reading it, though the wording of the rules themselves is very peculiar. Despite the wording, the numbers have nothing to do with the number of players in a club's team, but the number of boards played in matches. As long as everyone understands, that's fine ... but it did make it difficult for me as an "outsider".

    As you're clearly aware such rules make things much more restrictive for the stronger players than for the weaker ones. That's probably how it should be, but if we have a large number of players all of roughly equal strength those restrictions will begin to seem increasingly arbitrary. So I'd be interested to hear about those now shelved rules relating to teams of equal strength. I have an alternative formulation of my own brewing also ... but it's late in the evening and that can wait.

    I'd be interested to know how rule 22(c) is policed. I can imagine it being difficult. More pressing than policing perhaps is how team a captain's planning (or a secretary's planning) best accommodates that rule. For a big club it sounds like a logistical nightmare.

    Before I give up for the evening, on a lighter note ...

    It doesn't really matter, but anyone who thinks like me may also be amused by the logical peculiarities of 22(c) as some players are necessarily nominated for teams that don't exist (in a club with four players and one team, the fourth player is nominated for the non-existent B team), and to talk of the number of games that remain for those non-existent teams is at least a little problematic. But I think the main point of the rule is clear enough, so as I say, this oddity doesn't really matter. it just tickled me ... perhaps I'm (too?) easily amused.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Steve
    the rule that was removed governing teams of equal strength read " If a club has two teams in Div 1, it has the option to field two two teams of more equal strength. If a club wishes to exercise this option, two of the top four registered players must be nominated for each team at the start of the season. The next four registered players. can play for either team "

    I would have thought that this format could be adjusted to accommodate three teams of equal strength as in Ipswich's case.

    I have not done in in depth analysis as to how this would have worked in Bury or Ipswich's case this season. But I do know that a player would not be able to play for A, B & C unless he was number nine on the list.

    I will leave you to digest, but all I know is that the NECL system does not throw up the anomalies that the SCCA rules do.

    Happy Christmas Woodpushers - John

    ReplyDelete
  12. John and all,

    It looks like Ipswich do indeed spread their strength throughout their teams in Division 1.

    Board 1 Ips A 190 IpsB 181 Ips C 178
    Board 2 Ips A 174 IpsB 181 Ips C 183
    Board 3 Ips A 159 IpsB 174 Ips C 162
    Board 4 Ips A 150 IpsB 157 Ips C 157

    Those are the nominations.

    Ipswich substitutes used across the teams.

    Rob's analysis above shows:
    Ipswich A have played every board as nominated.
    Ipswich B have managed a commendable 92% which is 11 of the 12 boards were as nominated
    Ipswich C managed 75% of the boards, 12/16 as nominated.

    Ipswich C all shunted up a board when Ian Wallis their board 1 did not play and made up the missing board 4 with a player who had not been nominated. So despite the 75% calculation only one player other than those nominated for the team was used.

    It matters not a fig which rules you apply SCCA or NECL, this is an exemplary record by any standards and we should commend Ipswich for their handling of their obligation to play nominated players.

    The calculations show that the percentages for both Bury A & Bury B are significatly lower but this should be no surprise as 3 of their 8 nominated players have not put in an appearance to date.They have used 7 other members of their club who were not nominated for Div 1 or Div 2 and 2 from Div 3 who were nominated there.

    There is no evidence of tactical selection here, the Bury teams are all absolutely within the rules as rule 21b does not define how many games a nominated player should play so at this stage of the season and under current rules Bury are spotless.

    Tightening the rules to require the nominated players to play for their nominated team, but not necessarily on the board for which they were nominated would cause Bury to renominate but that is not the case now.

    There may be some "moral" argument about the validity of the initial nomination by Bury and whether the nominated players all acually committed themselves to play in the league in their nominated places but we must ignore such moralising as the Bury teams are within the rules as written.

    Personally I think the rules are the things that are at fault here if there is a fault not any team.

    This analysis shows that with good will the rules work as intended but do we want the rules to rely on good will or enforcenment by penalty?

    That is a matter on which I am undecided and I guess many others are also undecided.

    Regards
    David Green

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hello All,

    I have done some analysis for the other teams in the SCCA leagues where a nominated player has not played and added my own club where 3 of our nominated players have made just 1 appearance each just for comparison.

    Analysis on a similar basis for Clacton

    38% 9 games played as nominated of the 24 games so far this season
    Board 1 nominee played 2 games
    Board 2 nominee played 0 games
    Board 3 nominee played 5 games for the team of which just 1 on board 3
    Board 4 nominee played 2 games for the team none on board 4.

    A total of 8 players are recorded with just 9 games played as nominated. One sub played 5 games and another 4 .

    An analysis for Mannigtree

    Manningtree A team has played every game as nominated
    Manningtree B is difficult to calculate as they re-nominated somewhere in November with the arrival of some 140 grade players and one of the re-nominated players has not yet played for the team.

    An analysis for Stowmarket

    Stowmarket A Division 2 scored 63% and 10/16
    Board 1 played all games as nominated
    Board 2 played all games as nominated
    Board 3 played 1 game as nominated, the team played the nominated board 4 on board 3 for his only game this season.
    Board 4 played 0 on Board 4 but played 1 on board 3
    2 Substitutes were used to make up the teams from the Stowmarket B team nominees who play in Division 3. This is the team where shift work disrupts availability. Total players used 6
    What do we do ? Options are to avoid nominating shift workers who are then ineligible to play any games on boards 3 and 4 as the nominated player are going to be more than 10 points weaker or do we nominate and play the shift workers as and when we can?
    The SCCA exists to encourage chess not discourage it so we chose the latter course.

    Stowmarket B, Division 3
    My team scored 71% and 17/24
    Board 1 played 5 on board 1 replaced by Board 2 for 1 game
    Board 2 played 5 on Board 2 and 1 on board 1 replaced for that game by board 3
    Board 3 played 4 on Board 3 and 1 on board 2 replaced by Franceys for 1 game and replaced by board 4 for 1 game.
    Board 4 played 1 on board 3 was replaced by Franceys for 4 games and another eligible un-nominated club member for 1 game.

    For one game our board 1 went missing on his way to the venue, he eventually arrived too late to play. We had all shunted up 1 board and started play ready to default on bottom board don’t you know, but we managed to grab an unsuspecting club member to play on board 4. That match was against Ipswich E when the all conquering Roger Smith beat Franceys to decide an otherwise all drawn match. It might well have been different if we were at full strength with our normal 120 grade board 3 against Roger. ( why does that sound like glass paper?)

    As I said before, replacing Vicky 109 with Franceys 106 on board 4 does not seem to be a reason to re nominate. Total players used 6 of whom 2 played one game each.

    Overall this targeted analysis shows that Clacton are nearest to needing to renominate to reflect the actual players playing in the league matches but are under no compulsion by the rules to do so.

    I hope we all agree that none of these teams are doing anything that breaks the rules.

    Regards
    David Green


    ReplyDelete
  14. Ok Dave, I will renominate Clactons team before our next match, and again every time we play.

    John

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello John,

      I am rather sad you feel you have to do anything of the sort. I do not understand why you should think it was the right thing to do at this time as the rules do not require it and your record does not show tactical substitutions are being used.

      My last sentence in my previous post was "I hope we all agree that none of these teams are doing anything that breaks the rules".

      However if you feel you must renominate for every match then that is permitted under the rules,or more accurately no limit has been placed on how often you can be expected to renominate.

      If my proposals for amendments get approved there will be a requirement to nominate players who will have to play an agreed minimum number of games for their nominated teams. That change would affect many clubs including mine where my DIV 3 board 4 has only 1 game and two of Stowmarkets Div 2 team have played just one game so far.

      This is all in the future and I ask that you wait until you have seen my proposals, currently with Bob Jones who has said he agrees with much of it. Next is to seek Mike McNaughton's views and then it will go to all club secretaries for consultation and further changes if needed The proposal needs to be completed ready to be to raised at the May commttee and the AGM which is on June 10 this year.

      I have argued in great detail that the current rule book is unfit for purpose as about 25 of the 29 suffolk league rules are, incomplete, over wordy as sentences with 74 words are unintelligible. self contradicting, have duplication in several places and do not address many issues that need spelling out. They have also been so often modified that there is no clarity or shape whatever about them and they do not reflect the activity on the website in any way that makes any sense.

      There will have to be a renomination after the the January grade because despite the rules being specific about using August grades all season for all except rule 11d which is the 10 points difference rule for substitutions Mike McN is going to use the January grade to assess if we are all within 10 points of the nominated grade for the board on which we play. With one of my team having been unbeaten and having defeated some higher graded players myself I think our grades may well jump by more than 10 points and so some of us will be ineligible for the boards for which we were originally nominated. Worse our Board 1 will drop by half a dozen points and so be unable t play above either me on board two or the board three player.

      Talk about anomalies:

      Regards
      David Green

      Delete

Please feel free to add your comments on this subject.