Nottinghamshire Chess Association

League Management Committee – Minutes – 2015–16

Minutes of the LMC meeting on Friday 22nd July 2016

Held at “The Vale” at 7:30

Present were Steve Burke (LS), Mike Naylor (RS), Maurice Hill, Chris Holt, Nick London, Derek Padvis.

Apologies received from Chris Budd.

Maurice Hill was elected Chairman.
The minutes of the last meeting were agreed.
The leagues structure for the coming season was discussed at length. There being 40 teams entered this season, the obvious aim was five divisions of eight teams. This was relatively easily achieved for the top three divisions, but nine teams wanted to play in the bottom division. The reasons included strength of players, number of players, and the shorter time limit.

After all the teams had been asked if they would accept a promotion, and declined that offer, there were three logical teams that could be put in Division 4.

Gambit 5, who finished bottom of Division 4 last season by 7 points
West Bridgford 5, who wanted to be dropped from Division 4, due to reduced player availability (they were close to withdrawing a team completely)
West Nottingham 5, who finished second in Division 5, but want their bottom team to be a junior team with the shorter time limit.

In the end it was decided by 4-2 that we would reluctantly put all nine teams in Division 5 rather than force one of these teams to play in Division 4.

This uncomfortable situation would be put to the next RRM for the Association to consider the policy and options for the future.

4. The revisions to the League Rules at the RRM were reviewed. The major discussion was about C7, the wording of which, on reflection, raises a number of issues that weren’t considered / ironed out at the RRM. (NB. We are not casting any aspersions here; due to the nature of that process it is difficult to draft major changes like this on the night in a large meeting.)

The specific wording of the rule that was passed means that the first two sentences are logically in conflict. The first says you must play in order. The second says that you don’t have to.
It quotes the “August ECF Grading List” which doesn’t actually exist as a published document. It means the August revision of the July list.
Only the latest revision and original July grades can be seen on the ECF Grading Database. It is not possible to check there whether a revision was made in August or later.
It says that the “Team Captain” should consult the Grading Officer about new players, which strictly excludes the club secretary or other officer from dealing with this.
In the same sentence, the word “should” ought to be “must”.

All of these issues could be sorted out (saying what we believe the proposers wanted) by redrafting the text, but the LMC did not want to risk another constitutional row. So the LS will publish how we intend to interpret the rule and propose amendments at the next RRM.

(NB. A point not mentioned within the meeting is that various parts of this rule should actually be in various other places within the rules.)

There was also discussion about the practicalities of operating the process. It was agreed that the Records Secretary, in conjunction with the Grading Officer, would produce a list after the August revision of the ECF Grading List to include all the current players of each club (so far as he can tell) and the grade that will be used for the season.

We agreed that applying a standard 80 grade for most completely new players (unless the club wish to argue that they should have a higher estimated grade) would keep things as simple as possible and minimise the work required by the Grading Officer. (NB. Though under the rule he has the final say.)

5. The LS Notes for the Handbook were reviewed and a few changes identified.

6. The list of email decisions made since the last LMC meeting was agreed and is added below.

7. There being no other business, the meeting closed at 8:56pm.

LMC Email Decisions 2015-16

1. There was an application from Grantham for a 3rd team to be entered into the league in Division 4. Ashfield 4 also had a claim to such a spot, having narrowly been relegated, if there was one. As Chris Holt and myself were directly involved the other members of the LMC decided the issue, and Grantham’s request was agreed.

Drag drew up fixtures and these were circulated.

2. LS agreed change of date for WB3 v Gr3 from 4/11 to 2/12.

3. Sadly the lack of players of sufficient strength resulted in University 1 being withdrawn. Luckily this withdrawal of a team during the season has been a very rare (possibly unique?) event, so there are several fallout points to note...

(Items d to h were decided by the LMC.)

The Records Secretary has amended the fixtures and table appropriately.
For simplicity, the lower University teams won’t be renumbered for this season.
As Uni 1 only played one game, those who played boards 1-3 are all still eligible for lower teams. However, under rule C5 this match will continue to count re eligibility for the University players.
It has been decided that the games against University 1 of the top three players of Ashfield 2 (who played a match) and of Gambit 1 (who won by default) will no longer count for their eligibility this season.
Re Rule C3, it has been decided to give dispensation for Andrew Walker and Darren Lee to play for a different club this season if they wish to continue playing at the higher level. Normal procedures would apply re being registered as “new players”.
It has been debated whether University 1 should be completely removed from the league with immediate effect or just be deemed to have finished 8th. This would affect if they can play in Div 2 next season, should the University feel they are able to (i.e. as if they were simply relegated). Following a split decision, the LMC will defer a decision on this to the end of the season, when it will be clearer to us, and the University, where things stand.
Only one other team will be relegated from Division 1.
For the time being, promotion and relegation in other divisions remains as before, i.e. notionally two up two down, as set out on Page 3 of the League Handbook.

If University 1 don’t reappear in Division 2 next season (see f above) the knock-on effect on the lower divisions’ relegation/promotion will depend, as usual, on circumstances. The LMC never knows where we stand until we get the entries in but, other things being equal, this could mean an extra team being promoted or one less being relegated in each case.

Items d and f in particular are not currently covered by a specific rule, and so are purely at the discretion of the LMC. Further consideration will be given to the need for such a rule to be introduced.

4. University 2 appealed against the -2 pts for defaulting against Long Eaton. The appeal was rejected nem con. The circumstances will be considered under rule D9 for next season.

5. Gambit 5 appealed against the fine for the default at Grantham 3. This was agreed.

6. West Nottingham 1 appealed against the points and fine penalties for the default against Grantham 1. The decision was to rescind the fine and reduce the penalty to 1 point.

League Secretary's Statement re Withdrawal of University 1 from Division 1

Sadly the lack of players of sufficient strength resulted in University 1 being withdrawn. I’d like to thank the University club officers for acting quickly and, by not letting the situation drag on, minimising inconvenience to other clubs. Hopefully the transitory nature of the student body will bring an influx of stronger players in the coming seasons.

Luckily withdrawal of a team during the season has been a very rare (possibly unique?) event, so there are several fallout points to note...

(Items d to h were decided by the LMC.)

The Records Secretary has amended the fixtures and table appropriately.
For simplicity, the lower University teams won’t be renumbered for this season.
As Uni 1 only played one game, those who played boards 1-3 are all still eligible for lower teams. However, under rule C5 this match will continue to count re eligibility for the University players.
It has been decided that the games against University 1 of the top three players of Ashfield 2 (who played a match) and of Gambit 1 (who won by default) will no longer count for their eligibility this season.
Re Rule C3, it has been decided to give dispensation for Andrew Walker and Darren Lee to play for a different club this season, if they wish to continue playing at the higher level. Normal procedures would apply re being registered as “new players”.
It has been debated whether University 1 should be completely removed from the league with immediate effect or be deemed to have finished 8th. This would affect if they can play in Division 2 next season, should the University feel they are able to do so (i.e. as if they were simply relegated). Following a split decision, the LMC will defer a decision on this to the end of the season, when it will be clearer to us, and the University, where things stand.
Only one other team will be relegated from Division 1.
For the time being, promotion and relegation in other divisions remains as before, i.e. notionally two up two down, as set out on Page 3 of the League Handbook.
If University 1 don’t reappear in Division 2 next season (see f above) the knock-on effect on the lower divisions’ relegation/promotion will depend, as usual, on circumstances. The LMC never knows where we stand until we get the entries in but, other things being equal, this could mean an extra team being promoted or one less being relegated in each case.

Steve Burke
League Secretary