Woodbridge B v Ipswich C
Division 3 Rapidplay Cup Wed 7th Feb 2024 Verify
| Board | Home | Woodbridge B | Ipswich C | Away | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (B) | 1770 (1411) | B Whatling, Darius | 0 - 1 | B Shephard, Andrew | 1829 (1847) |
| 2 (W) | 1770 (1411) | B Whatling, Darius | 0 - 1 | B Shephard, Andrew | 1829 (1847) |
| 3 (W) | 1482 (1569) | S Such, Daniel | 1 - 0 | S Hickey, Conor | 2138 (1586) |
| 4 (B) | 1482 (1569) | S Such, Daniel | 0 - 1 | S Hickey, Conor | 2138 (1586) |
| 5 (B) | 1401 (1316) | S Douse, Dominic | 1 - 0 | N Ross, Bernard | 1545 (1438) |
| 6 (W) | 1401 (1316) | S Douse, Dominic | 1 - 0 | N Ross, Bernard | 1545 (1438) |
| 7 (W) | 1000 (1417) | S Bostock, Jemima | 0 - 1 | B Lunn, Ken | 1490 (1543) |
| 8 (B) | 1000 (1417) | S Bostock, Jemima | 0 - 1 | B Lunn, Ken | 1490 (1543) |
| Adjustment | 2 - -2 | ||||
| Total | 11306 | 5 - 3 | Total | 14004 |
Last update Sam Gaffney Wed 21st Feb 2024 07:10. Reported by Ken Lunn Wed 7th Feb 2024 22:22. Verified By
Comments
sgaffney
Thu, 08/02/2024 - 07:10
Permalink
Ratings
Ratings for Woodbridge team as follows:
Ipswich C
Under Rule A1.3, each team will have the same nominations as their league entry and Rule A1.6 says rapidplay ratings should be used or a standard rating, where a player does not have a rapidplay rating (which is understood to be a K-rating as per Rule 4.2).
Therefore Ipswich C's nominations are:
This means that Bernard Ross and Ken Lunn were both ineligible players (as ratings more than 80 above nominated player) under Rule 5.4f. Bernard lost both games so no penalty. Ken won both which should then be reversed - leading to a Woodbridge B win.
I've passed this on to the appropriate committee member to decide as I'm a member of Woodbridge.
pdolewka
Thu, 08/02/2024 - 13:37
Permalink
Appeal comment
Hi Sam,
Sorry to say that but for myself, it looks the rules for these competitions are quite unfair and on favour of certain teams, as allow to not have nominated players.
From my point of view, only Adrew Shephard played as sub for myself, and as I understand you won’t challenge his eligibility for appearance.
Kenn is a nominated player in the main team.
Both Conor and Bernard are also nominated players according to rule 5.4
5.4
(b) A nominated player’s main team will be the team for which he is nominated. For a player who is not nominated to any team, his main team will be the first team for which he plays three games.
Both played 3 games for Ipswich C team, and both are not nominated to any other team. And in my understanding, both are part of the team. In that case treating them as substitute players is not right.
If we will be treating that all not nominated players, I wouldn’t be able to complete team to play or introduce any new player to competitive games during the season, as new a player can be too strong for my opponents (?).
I believe the boar will make only one reasonable decision and won’t be threatened by those kinds of situations as violations, not now, nor ever. Unless rules will be equal for all teams and clear enough to exclude different interpretations.
I am sorry that for the second time in the season, we need to argue about rules and not enjoy the games.
Regards,
Piotr D.
sgaffney
Thu, 08/02/2024 - 18:39
Permalink
Hi Piotr,
Hi Piotr,
I appreciate you're disappointed about my analysis and the previous decision that went against Ipswich B in the Rapidplay cup. I can see that it seems unfair that a team can win a match on the night but then have the results reversed the following morning - especially when it's a knockout competition. But, as the Competitions Secretary, I have to interpret the rules as best I can and I understand that that won't make me popular.
I don't like to engage in exchanges like this but I thought I'd write as I think you've made an error in your interpretation of the rules. You've conflated "main team" and nomination. A team provides a list of four players at the start of the season which they can revise until the third week of January. These are the nominated players and their ratings define (with a small upward tolerance - 80pts) the strength of the player that can appear on a board. This is exactly to ensure that teams can't be arbitrarily strengthened for a particular match - an outcome you note in your comment. A player's "main team" determines which team they can make unlimited appearances for - but these appearances have to comply with the nominations.
The main issue with the Rapidplay cups is that the nomination rules from the League apply - but now with Rapidplay ratings. Team captains tend to be less aware of these and work off their intuitive strength of players. The second issue is that teams that are not entered into the league do not have nominations and hence these rules can't be applied to them. This lacuna has occured as opening these competitions to teams outside the appropriate division was an afterthought. The committee will be considering a proposal to require those teams to submit nominations in future.
I'll let you know when I've been provided with an outcome for this match.
pdolewka
Fri, 09/02/2024 - 10:00
Permalink
Last word
Hi Sam,
Thank you for the clarification. I understand your perspective now, but I still disagree. What is not clearly stated in the rules should be interpreted as the rule. Otherwise, how can I know what the rules are? The rest of our discussion can continue outside of this forum.
However, I want to express one more thing that I believe is important.
I acknowledge that your role is extremely difficult and often goes unappreciated. Personally, I truly value and appreciate the work you do as the Competitions Secretary. I understand the effort you put into helping and advising teams to follow the rules (this is not only my opinion). For example, I appreciate the assistance you provided regarding a potential nomination change for Tom.
While we may hold different views and occasionally disagree, I believe it should not impact the mutual respect or regard we have for each other. You can always expect my utmost respect for you as an individual, a chess player, and a professional.
In my opinion, we should not judge you based on the decisions you make in your role. If anyone has any concerns about your work, they always have the opportunity to express their opinion at the Annual General Meeting (AGM).
sgaffney
Fri, 09/02/2024 - 13:09
Permalink
Initial Decision
I passed this onto the Stephen Lewis, the SCCA President, to rule on the match. He confirms that Ipswich C were in breach of the nomination rules on boards 3 and 4, that Ken Lunn's results are reversed and, therefore, the match won by Woodbridge B.
Ipswich could consider acting under Rule 9.3:
An email registering an appeal would need to reach me and Stephen Lewis by 16th February.
sgaffney
Sat, 10/02/2024 - 08:18
Permalink
Appeal
Ipswich have appealed Stephen's decision to the SCCA Committee.
sgaffney
Wed, 21/02/2024 - 07:10
Permalink
Appeal Rejected
Ipswich's appeal was rejected by the SCCA Committee. Woodbridge B win the match.
pdolewka
Wed, 21/02/2024 - 11:54
Permalink
Content of the appeal - for process transparency
Just for transparency of the appeal process I publish below the content of the appeal rejected by the SCCA Committee.
I would like to appeal against the objection raised by Sam regarding ineligible players in our recent match.
Sam claims that we violated Rule Rule A1.3, each team will have the same nominations as their league entry and Rule A1.6 says rapidplay ratings should be used or a standard rating, where a player does not have a rapidplay rating (which is understood to be a K-rating as per Rule 4.2) and Rule 5.4f, the rating of a substitute player must not exceed 80 points more than the nominated player for whom he is substituting. Those rules in combination applied to substitute players.
In relation to the substitution of players in our match:
- On board 1: Andrew substituted for me
- On board 2: Conor substituted for Ken (who actually played in the match)
- On board 3: Bernard substituted for Adam
- On board 4: Ken (who had been substituted by Conor) substituted for Martyn
From my perspective, only Andrew Shephard was a legitimate substitute for myself, and I believe Sam will not challenge his eligibility to play. Ken was the nominated player, and his board number was determined by his rating. According to Rule 5.4b point (b), both Conor and Bernard should also be recognized as nominated players as they played for their main team.
Both Conor and Bernard played three games for Ipswich C team and are not nominated to any other team. Therefore, in my understanding, they are part of my team (Ipswich C) and should not be treated as substitute players.
Sam mentioned that a player's "main team" and nomination are not the same, and that a player's "main team" determines which team they can make unlimited appearances for, but these appearances must comply with the nominations with a small margin of tolerance (80 points).
While I understand the intention behind this interpretation, I do not agree with treating hidden intentions as binding regulations. The lack of clear provisions in the regulations concerning additional players makes it difficult to comply with this rule. How can a team captain know about a rule that is not clearly stated in the regulations?
It also would be unfair to apply some rules only to certain teams in the competition. I trust that the board will make a fair decision and not consider these situations as violations, as they have not been defined in the rules.
If the team is penalized, I also want to raise concerns about three other matches that should be verified under the same rules:
- Warren Hill vs Woodbridge B
- Bury St Edmunds D vs Woodbridge B
- Stowmarket B vs Ipswich C
Woodbridge B fielded ineligible players in Match 1 and Match 2.
Based on the rules mentioned above, the nominations for Woodbridge A are Simon Wilks, Sam Gaffney, Tim Wesson, and Ed Kirkham. The potential nominated players for Woodbridge B are Daniel Such, Darius Whatling, Dominic Douse, and Jemima Bostock.
Based on the rankings on the match days:
Match 1
- On board 1: Sam Gaffeney (Rapid: 1729A) played instead of the potential nominated Darius Whatling (Provisional: 1500), making Sam ineligible to play.
- On board 3: Darius Whatling (Provisional: 1500) played instead of the potential nominated Dominc Douse (Rapid: 1365K), making Darius ineligible to play.
- On board 4: Dominic Douse (Rapid: 1365K) played instead of the potential nominated Jemima Bostock (Provisional: 1000), making Dominic ineligible to play.
Match 2
- On board 1: Timothy Wesson (Rapid: 1626K) played instead of the potential nominated Darius Whatling (Provisional: 1500), making Timothy ineligible to play.
Match 3
Bernard Ross (Rapid 1530K) played instead of the nominated Adam Wilson (Standard 1441K, no rapid), making Bernard ineligible to play.
I also would like to share my concerns as both Ipswich teams in the Division 3 Rapidplay Cup have not only had their honest victories overturned but have also can be knocked out of the Competition as a direct consequence. This is grossly unjust. It is clear that the rules concerning grades are now so convoluted as to be oppressive and are in desperate need of simplification.
I hope that these concerns will be considered and addressed accordingly."
And from the second email:
"In addition to my first email, I would like to add that we considered changes to the nomination for the Ipswich C team, including adding Tom Gordon. However, after receiving helpful advice from Sam, we decided not to include him. I carefully reviewed the rules and was fully aware of past rating confusions. I designated Andrew Shephard as my substitute with confidence that he was allowed to play. Although this decision surprised Sam, he agreed that it was within the rules. I could have changed the nominations to include Conor and Bernard as the highest-rated players, but the lack of clarity in the regulations regarding the 80-point rule for non-nominated players playing for their primary team prevented me from doing so. If the rules had been clearer, the situation would have been different."