Post by arf on Jun 15, 2013 14:58:39 GMT
Kent loses appeal
As you can imagine a stir has been created as the application of County Match Rules A4 (ECF Membership) and C3.3 (Penalty for fielding ineligible player) overturns the result of the Kent match (7.5-8.5) in Middlesex’s favour (8-7). The furore of course is through no fault of Middlesex who benefit as they proceed to final through the lacksadaisical approach of Kent’s captain on checking that the team fielded meet the eligibility criteria; there they will face another SCCU rival - Surrey - and try to win their 30th National Title.
When this news came to light discussion in various arenas drew the following dominant views: a) Middlesex should withdraw and let Kent proceed to Final (spirit of game)
b) Middlesex should abide by the match rules and although empathising at Kent’s plight take up a spot in the Final (law of the game) Arguments for and against each position were eloquently given but as you’d suspect with extreme positions taken it would be surprising if consensus could be reached. Yes a few compromises given but impractical.
However when all is said and done it should be recognised that the issue is between ECF (the creators and legislators of the County Match Rules) and Kent (the transgressor of said rules thus having knowledge of how and why rules breached) so Middlesex have no choice but to adopt a neutral stance and await the outcome of any discussion between the two organisations to determine if there are extenuating circumstances that will permit the original result to stand. Yes this is sitting on the fence and the splinters do hurt, but should it be the responsibility of Middlesex to decide whether the spirit or law of the game should be followed as in one they benefit and the other they lose out. Any action by Middlesex will support either one side or other when in reality they should support both, uphold the rules and applaud opponents, a position which in this case clearly cannot be done. Surely the responsibility to make the final decision rests with a third party such as an appeals committee?
As thing stood, Middlesex proceed to final however they waited to see if Kent would lodge an appeal. In the event one is submitted Middlesex would certainly abide by any decision, especially if Kent succeeds. Namely, if the original result is reinstated a counter-appeal would not be submitted since Middlesex want to recognise that they were defeated on match day and irrespective how arrived at the reinstated result shows this. It will be interesting though to see on what grounds the appeal is made on and what concessions were made to reach decision, for example, status quo remains (Middlesex play in Final) so the current rules maintained but amended for future? Alternatively Kent gets to play in Final as they get special dispensation of Rule A4? Or even are lucky to escape the application of penalties (Rule C3.3)? Not sure how either of the latter can occur as rules do not allow for Controller’s discretion. The rules quite simply are black and white. We wait with bated breath.
Kent as expected submits an appeal which is heard by the Appeals Committee on 12th June 2013. The outcome being Kent’s appeal is unsuccessful - see here for details www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Kent-Appeal.pdf
Consequently presuming their are no further twists and turns the matter is resolved. I can now inform that the revised score stands, Middlesex win 8-7 and benefit from Kent’s unfortunate oversight thus has one further match to play, the Final against Surrey. All would agree that it is unsatisfying (some would say unethical) to qualify for final by error of opponent rather than own endeavours; however it must be remembered that when entering a competition of this or any other nature from the outset all participants accept they will abide by the rules governing them. So although some of the rules may be ‘silly’, it is beholden on participants to accept the consequences of them whether silly or not, for example, does a tennis player say to umpire they cannot accept winning a game/set/match/Championship on a double fault? A football team refuse a win if attained by own goal? How often do chess teams in chess leagues fall foul of eligibility rule when a player represents a higher team too many times or players the ringing of a mobile phone? Yes the point may be stretched but highlights that victory is sometimes attained by the error of opponent not by one’s own endeavour and even if the winner is sympathetic with their plight, especially if opponent played well, must accept the outcome else why have rule in first place? In an earlier report I highlighted that in 2011-12 Middlesex were in danger of playing an ineligible player in National Stage due to lack of information received from said player; had it occurred what would they have done? Challenged or accepted application of rules especially if it led to a result being overturned?
Anyway what cases like this do highlight is the need to review the rules periodically to see where they can be improved upon so that, those transgressing and those deriving a benefit from a breach can both walk away satisfied with no grievance, i.e. feel the need to appeal. The rules should be as transparent as possible so all know where they stand and this is the responsibility of the legislators. The upshot is irrespective of our personal views on the matter Middlesex has an unexpected opportunity to defend their title won in magnificent style against the same opponents in the 2011-12 final. It is understandable when receiving formal invitation to play in Final some of you may have second thoughts, misgivings or reservations about playing that of course is your right. But do remember the situation was not of Middlesex’s making and the actions of others (ECF and Kent) should not wreak havoc on the team spirit and solidarity built within our own squad over the past 5years. Middlesex spent almost a decade in the dark during the Nineties and Noughties that is acceptable as their collapse resulted from internecine warfare; it would be tragic for them to enter another due to external influences. One unfortunate incident must not undo the hard work that has ensured Middlesex is once again a formidable force so let us put the negatives behind us and move on and focus on the positives.
Looking forward in reaching a successive final Middlesex will once again face Surrey. Finals which are a rematch of erstwhile finalists have been rare occurrences over the past two decades or so thus suggesting county chess is highly competitive as compared to say Scottish football! Let it be noted that Unions have dominated but no one county within it has asserted their will on the others – yet! The Record Book shows the last teams to have met in successive finals were Middlesex and Kent (1984-85 & 1985-86). Since that time Kent vs. Lancashire (1987-88;1990-91 & 2002-03) and Kent vs. Essex (1992-93;1996-7 & 2001-02) can lay claim to being the last teams to have played in a subsequent final so it is good to finally break this trend. Further in the history of the County Championships the Middlesex vs. Surrey contest is the 24th all-Union final – NCCU (7) and SCCU (17). All Union finals were made possible from 1957-58 after the entry of WECU (formed 1957) into the Championship. With 5 extant Unions (MCCU; NCCU; SCCU; Welsh Chess Union (formed 1954) and WECU) it was necessary to amend number of qualifiers, namely, to include non-Champion counties and to introduce another round, hence the quarter-final. The first all Union final was Lancashire vs. Yorkshire in 1959-60 and the first all-SCCU final was in 1970-71 (Cambridgeshire vs. Essex).
Last 5 Open National Championships -
Middlesex: 2012 – Champions; 2011 – QF; 2010 – DNQ; 2009 – SF; 2008 – Runner-up
Surrey: 2012 – Runner-up; 2011 – Champions; 2010 – DNQ; 2009 – QF; 2008 - SF
Head-to-Head Statistics:
All P75 W50 D18 L7
SCCU: P74 W49 D18 L7
National Stage: P1 W1 (2011-12 F W 8.5-7.5)
Full details:
ECF Stage: County Championship Final
Match: Middlesex vs. Surrey
Date – 13th July 2013
Venue – Trident Centre, Warwick CV34 6SW
Start time – tbc usually 1:30pm
Time Control – 40moves 2h + 30QPF
In playing Surrey again it is safe to presume they will be champing at the bit as they will be determined to bring to an end to their misery of being Middlesex’s whipping boys; they will not want to see their greatest rival lift a 3rd title at their expense. If victory were to be attained Middlesex will set a new all-time record of winning National Title – 30. In order to ensure a Middlesex victory does not come to pass it is envisaged that unlike heretofore Surrey’s big guns will turn out for them in this match, subject of course to any international commitments they have. Consequently, the likes of Bogdan Lalic, Steve Berry, Gavin Wall, Nigel Povah, Russell Granat, Roger Emerson, Clive Frostick, Marcus Osborne, and Chris Briscoe are expected to grace their team. Will the likes of Zhou Yang-Fan, Alberto Suarez, Graeme Buckely, Peter and Susan Lalic also grace their team? Always assuming your opponent gets out their strongest side especially in finals Middlesex will have to be at their fighting best. If both teams can get out representative sides then the 2012-13 final could well be the first since 1998-99 (Cambridgeshire (211) vs. Kent (201)) to see both sides average 200+.
Game on!