Tournaments right to refuse entry

reunion

Should tournaments be permitted to refuse entries to individuals with good standing of the ICU?

reunion

While the poll doesn't capture every scenario, it does pose a general question, which tournaments are allowed to refuse entry to certain individuals who are members of the ICU and are now in good standing with the ICU.

sinbad68

The poll question format is poor, vague, confusing and biased. Refuse entry on what basis ? . If the question is to refuse entry based on someone who has cheated in the past , then I would vote "yes" to all and if based on organiser personally not liking someone then I vote " none of the above ". I voted " none of the above " anyway as I believe, if a person is of good standing , then why should they be refused entry to any rated tournament without a very solid reason ?, if not rated and private tournament , then that's different.

Sparks

Um. That's not actually a question, in that it's already an established point of law. You run a private event, and you have the right to refuse entry to that event to any individual you want. Their standing in the eyes of the ICU is irrelevant.

If you're asking can the ICU force a tournament to allow entry for an individual whom the organisers have denied entry, the answer is again, no. But they are allowed withhold any funds they had allocated to the tournament. Beyond that, there are no legal means available to them really.

This was fairly well explored with Portmarnock Golf Club in the supreme court a while back, if I remember right...

reunion

Not sure how to word this poll better honestly. This topic is quite broad and is mainly going on from another thread. There is a lot of scope.

cdeb

If the poll is to capture every possible scenario, it could quite big.

If people have an opinion that's not in the options, then like sinbad, best is to post it up for discussion.

Interesting that this arose from the suggestion the ICU weren't going to rate a tournament that was (apparently) not allowing entry to an ICU member. But previously, as I recall, tournaments which have admitted actively banned ICU members have been rated. Bit inconsistent?

sinbad68

Sparks wrote: »

Um. That's not actually a question, in that it's already an established point of law. You run a private event, and you have the right to refuse entry to that event to any individual you want. Their standing in the eyes of the ICU is irrelevant.

If you're asking can the ICU force a tournament to allow entry for an individual whom the organisers have denied entry, the answer is again, no. But they are allowed withhold any funds they had allocated to the tournament. Beyond that, there are no legal means available to them really.

This was fairly well explored with Portmarnock Golf Club in the supreme court a while back, if I remember right...

@sparks. You are missing the point here , The galway event organiser has to submit results to icu first and icu has to hand it over to fide to be rated .An icu member has been banned from playing in the event apparently ( to best of my knowledge ) only because of an altercation with a 16 year old boy in a different event ( cork ) couple of years earlier .First issue is, whether an organiser can play judge,jury and executioner in banning players into a tournament? does an organiser own the competition ?.If this was a private event which was unrated, it would be a different scenario, but because of the rating issue, icu is being involved, the banned player has made a complaint to icu about the ban . If a competition fails in rules or standards or being unfair , icu has the right to refuse to rate and/or forward results to fide as just happened last month in national club championship which was not rated by icu or fide . IMO , There should be a protocol that if an organiser in an icu rated event wants to ban a player, he will forward reason/s to icu and icu should have a say, otherwise what is stopping organisers banning people they don't like?, sparks, lets say you really wanted to play in an rated event which was organised by me and I said I don't like you and you're not entering , how would you feel about it ? .In this specific case, to be frank if the organiser where the altercation took place refused entry to either party in altercation , there would be some justification but for other venues to use it as an excuse is simply unfair .As regards galway organiser, knowing that only last month icu refused to rate national club championship to take the risk of event not being rated and disappointing many entrants, shows lack of wisdom imho .

P.S, I don't have a dog in this fight but typed so much about it

Sparks

To answer your questions sinbad, yes, yes, nothing because the law says it's their right, and my feelings would be irrelevant as they should be in any case involving someone else's legal rights.

To address your missed point, the ICU only have limited means at their disposal here (as is the case in all other sports). They provide a service to members; they can choose not to provide that service (this is them controlling their own actions). Controlling the actions of others is not something they have a legal right to do nor have they the legal authority to enforce it. That, again, is a basic and standard principle all sports NGBs operate under in this country.

If FIDE rate people directly (as they happily do for online play), then that's between the ICU and FIDE to discuss. As to the ICU and the organisers, the truth is that if FIDE rates the tournament without the ICU's involvement, then the ICU does not even have any indirect control over a tournament, because clubs and events are independent bodies with equal status under the law as the ICU itself regardless of the thoughts of some people who have expressed... unsound contrary opinions at AGMs (recall, the ICU is an unincorporated association, as are all the clubs; the law recognises no hierarchical relationship between it and the clubs or any other entity). The workings of NGBs and clubs and events like these are the same for chess as for any other sport, and every other sport has been working like this for many years now. If chess wants to come up with a new way to work, that's a matter for the future and would be observed with interest; but enforcing an arbitrarily selected mechanism now without the cooperation of tournament organisers would be at best legally impossible and unwise; and at worse could be seen as being the ICU attempting to interfere with the ability of a private event being financially viable. Lawsuits have (literally) come about in sport over far smaller things (seriously, some of the ones seen in golf alone over the years seem motivated by incredibly trivial things to non-golfers -- by comparison, causing someone to make a financial loss on an event seems enormously more serious); given the ICU's resources, such a lawsuit here (and I'm not saying one is going to happen, let's be clear, I'm just pointing out a possible risk), could financially devastate the ICU and cause major damage to the sport over the short and mid terms.


TL:DR; What's done is done and the best course would be to consider future events and how the ICU will operate in relation to them. Trying to take a stick to this one would be at best ill-advised, at worst a major self-inflicted disaster.

Chess_Coach

The time is running out the tournament chancees to be rated are very slim unfortunately .
The member in question might win Drogheda tournament now so nice big pic at ICU website will be published soon . No problems in Drogheda at all . I mean noone was caught cheating in Bathroom

reunion

"sinbad68 wrote: »

does an organiser own the competition ?

Yes they do. The icu do not state that every private tournament must be open to every member. Nor do they say they own an event if it's icu rated.

Just to note the icu has been giving a grant to a large private event each year (this year included) which has banned an individual who was in good standing with the icu (has been banned previously). They rated that event this year. Seems the icu executive are inconsistent with their policy implementations.

"sinbad68 wrote: »

because of the rating issue, icu is being involved, the banned player has made a complaint to icu about the ban . If a competition fails in rules or standards or being unfair , icu has the right to refuse to rate and/or forward results to fide as just happened last month in national club championship which was not rated by icu or fide .

The NCC not being rated is a joke. Why haven't the icu informed members of this? Why is the icu not rating events anymore? I honestly can't trust the information the icu puts in its calendar anymore.

"sinbad68 wrote: »

IMO , There should be a protocol that if an organiser in an icu rated event wants to ban a player, he will forward reason/s to icu and icu should have a say, otherwise what is stopping organisers banning people they don't like?,

There should be. But there isn't. So we now have a change in policy, procedure and implementation with no notice to anyone.

Organisers advertise a competition to a specific audience to target a specific market. For instance 1 could be sectioned to cater to those allergic to losing rating points, another could be an open, another could discriminate based on sex or age and another could aim for a safe event for children. If organisers banned people they didn't like, people would vote with their wallet and not attend.

You got to keep in mind, everyone in the chess community is aware of the previous ban. It would be neglect to permit a high risk individual to partake in an event with minors.

"sinbad68 wrote: »

As regards galway organiser, knowing that only last month icu refused to rate national club championship to take the risk of event not being rated and disappointing many entrants, shows lack of wisdom imho .

Actually the icu are choosing to not rate the NCC isn't public. They haven't stated why they aren't rating that event. It seems quite smart to run this event when no rationale has been made public.

Chess_Coach

reunion wrote: »

Yes they do. The icu do not state that every private tournament must be open to every member. Nor do they say they own an event if it's icu rated.

Just to note the icu has been giving a grant to a large private event each year (this year included) which has banned an individual who was in good standing with the icu (has been banned previously). They rated that event this year. Seems the icu executive are inconsistent with their policy implementations.



The NCC not being rated is a joke. Why haven't the icu informed members of this? Why is the icu not rating events anymore? I honestly can't trust the information the icu puts in its calendar anymore.



There should be. But there isn't. So we now have a change in policy, procedure and implementation with no notice to anyone.

Organisers advertise a competition to a specific audience to target a specific market. For instance 1 could be sectioned to cater to those allergic to losing rating points, another could be an open, another could discriminate based on sex or age and another could aim for a safe event for children. If organisers banned people they didn't like, people would vote with their wallet and not attend.

You got to keep in mind, everyone in the chess community is aware of the previous ban. It would be neglect to permit a high risk individual to partake in an event with minors.



Actually the icu are choosing to not rate the NCC isn't public. They haven't stated why they aren't rating that event. It seems quite smart to run this event when no rationale has been made public.

I think regarding NCC that parings were not done correct and file provided to rating officer can not be rated . This is the latest that I have heard in my private capacity not officially .I might be wrong here . So that has nothing with ICU please ask event arbiter .
Paring was totally wrong .

sinbad68

Sparks wrote: »

To answer your questions sinbad, yes, yes, nothing because the law says it's their right, and my feelings would be irrelevant.
.

reunion wrote: »

Yes they do. The icu do not state that every private tournament must be open to every member. Nor do they say they own an event if it's icu rated.ementations.
There should be. But there isn't. So we now have a change in policy, procedure and implementation with no notice to anyone.

Organisers advertise a competition to a specific audience to target a specific market. For instance 1 could be sectioned to cater to those allergic to losing rating points, another could be an open, another could discriminate based on sex or age and another could aim for a safe event for children. If organisers banned people they didn't like, people would vote with their wallet and not attend..

So basically what sparks and reunion are saying is that organisers and private entities can discriminate against who is allowed to come in without having to give a reason and no one has a right to interfere as it's their business. Thankfully your argument is not generally accepted by governments & society , otherwise signs which were once a common sight in 1960's britain ,hanging from windows of lodgings might still be there.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/15/theresa-may-immigration-bill-racist-landlords

reunion

Chess_Coach wrote: »

I think regarding NCC that parings were not done correct and file provided to rating officer can not be rated . This is the latest that I have heard in my private capacity not officially .I might be wrong here . So that has nothing with ICU please ask event arbiter .
Paring was totally wrong .

No icu statement and no proof = rumour.

If you say I might be wrong here, you are.

Sparks

sinbad68 wrote: »

So basically what sparks and reunion are saying is that organisers and private entities can discriminate against who is allowed to come in without having to give a reason and no one has a right to interfere as it's their business.

This is correct, which is why you see these signs today:



How equality law comes into it is more nuanced that you suggest and does not apply in cases where the reasons do not fall into specific categories.

Chess_Coach

reunion wrote: »

No icu statement and no proof = rumour.


If you say I might be wrong here, you are.

________________________________________________________________
This is still ongoing matter and as I understood another arbiter tried to fix this problem but no luck. Now we have problem with NCC all together as it looks like that Parings were indeed wrong and that is not possible to rate event .
This is now confirmed to me by Rating officer . So what happenned is that parings in round 2 were wrong so parings in round 4 were totally messed . It is not possible to rate this event and all tournament was not valid which gave us problem to send 2 teams . However after very hard work by ICU Rating officer the ECU has confirmed ICU two teams which is good .
I understand that complaint will be filed against Arbiter .
So I was not wrong . It was more that you wanted me to be in wrong.

So it has nothing with ICU but with Arbiter lack of knowledge and FIDE book ! On another way the ICU is responsible for allowing this arbiter to be there at the first place. I think that we need more arbiters - especially stronger chess players with international expirance and ICU to select the best for all ICU tournaments .

This saga about refusing the entry is very simple to me .
This tournament will be run by FIDE book as it would be Fide rated .
The Fide Ethic Commission gave the advice to ICU

Here is the email

Dear Sir

If the player has served his period of suspension and is otherwise in good standing with the ICU and is eligible to participate in the tournament, there seems to be no good grounds to discriminate against him and refuse him entry to the tournament. See for instance the case of Sebastian Feller:
http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/8716-gm-sebastian-feller.html


You do not say what type of tournament is it. I assume it is a local open tournament.
A complaint to the ICU’s Ethics Commission / Disciplinary Committee seems to be the correct way to proceed. First warn the organiser and see whether he is prepared to change his mind. If not, he must state clearly his grounds for refusal.
_______________________________________________________________


So the Organizer have been asked to provide reason for ban and as I understand the Organizer has done that .
Now the ICU executive will proceede further.

As I said before the ICU executive has to protect and listen both sides here and I hope that we will have decission soon .


The banned member played few tournaments after suspension and no problem was reported at all and he is ready to sign document in which he state and promisse good behaveing while playing event .

reunion

Chess_Coach wrote: »

So I was not wrong . It was more that you wanted me to be in wrong

I think you have misunderstood me here. I don't want anyone to be wrong. I understand what you are saying is probably true, you know more than I do. You are probably 100% right. However, without proof, there is no way to separate truth, half truths, rumours and lies. Don't think that I'm just targeting you here, if anyone can't backup what they are saying with facts, it will be deleted/modified and they will be warned. It is particularly important when it could cost a tournament money and jeopardise one of the few tournament we have.

Chess_Coach wrote: »

The banned member played few tournaments after suspension and no problem was reported at all and he is ready to sign document in which he state and promisse good behaveing while playing event .

If he is ready to sign a statement saying he is sorry and has remorse and wouldn't object to parents being notified/giving sufficent notice to organisers than maybe. At present he is still of the belief the use of force was the right choice (see multiple paper statements and emails). If his opinion is still this (and he shows no remorse or regret) he must be refused for the safety of the members present.

No grown man can be happy or glad he applied force on a minor.

sinbad68

Sparks wrote: »

This is correct, which is why you see these signs today:



How equality law comes into it is more nuanced that you suggest and does not apply in cases where the reasons do not fall into specific categories.

@sparks. I neither have the will or the energy for a prolonged debate on this matter as I don't have a dog in this fight, specially now that I am busy on my own blog which was launched a couple weeks ago, but it's not public and only allow friends and people I like on it.I will however praise you for not mincing your words and being straight .If your method of thinking was applied (in some societies they are ! ), the society would be full of discrimination , injustice and corruption..etc and guys like sepp blatter would be in charge everywhere.

As regarding refusal of entry in this specific case , if you want to run a RATED tournament , then you are involving icu/fide and should obey their codes of conduct .As I said galway organiser is a nice guy and a gentle...... man, The tournament is advertised on galway club website which means he is organising the tournament on the behalf of his club and when you have been entrusted by your club to run a competition, you have a job to do and should do what is best for your club and the competition and have good judgement and should not get your personal feelings involved which would jeopardise the rating of the competition .sparks you seem to have some legal knowledge ( or pretend to do anyway ) what happens if The tournament does Not get fide rated , can entrants take legal action to cover the cost of travel , accommodation& time when competition has been advertised as being fide rated ?, if yes from whom ? .I really have nothing more to say about this case.Done !

PS . My blog is NOT chess related but if you pm me and I like& know you , I'll let you in .

Sparks

sinbad68 wrote: »

@sparks. I neither have the will or the energy for a prolonged debate on this matter

That's fine, it's not actually a debate anyway. It's the law and your opinion's not enough to let you avoid it.

if you want to run a RATED tournament , then you are involving icu/fide and should obey their codes of conduct

First of all, you're assuming that those codes of conduct have been broken. Then you're assuming that both organisations need to be involved. Then you are assuming that someone would file a complaint with those bodies and that either of those bodies would then prevent the event from running somehow (you do know how much the necessary High Court injunction would be, right?). And lastly you are assuming the complaint would be upheld.

Lot of assuming there.

should not get your personal feelings involved

Another assumption.
One I myself wouldn't agree with.

what happens if The tournament does Not get fide rated , can entrants take legal action to cover the cost of travel , accommodation& time when competition has been advertised as being fide rated ?

Yes. Doesn't mean they'd win (frankly I think they'd lose if they sued for anything more than the entry fee), doesn't mean it'd be free (solicitors like to be paid and you can't recover section 68 costs if you win and no-win-no-fee is not legal in Ireland), and frankly I think anyone with the money to do that kind of thing values their time highly enough that they wouldn't waste it on that sort of thing (they'd just not go next time), but hey, it's permitted.

And I'm sure the ensuing financial problems they'd cause to the club would ensure they got a special hand-written gold-leaf invitation to every club event in the country for the rest of their natural life and make them highly popular with the whole chess community...

PS . My blog is NOT chess related but if you pm me and I like& know you , I'll let you in .

Thanks, but I'm fine

reunion

Sparks I'm going to have to disagree with you here about legal battles. Anyone can run a chess tournament, that's not being disputed. Getting it FIDE rated means both FIDE and the ICU (or a national federaton) must consent to the tournament being rated. The ICU would be paying for the tournament to be rated.

If a tournament wants to be ICU rated, can it refuse entry to women? Men? Black people? Peadophiles? Specific chess club members? And still be rated by the ICU?

There is no procedure currently and it's based solely on what the executive are feeling at the time. This is bad for both organisers and individuals wanting to compete. The executive has permitted individuals to be refused entry from tournaments before but has changed its stance for this tournament (and apparently ennis).

The ICU needs to consult tournament organisers before changing it's stance and rules. A standard guideline needs to be created.

Currently any event advertised on the icu site as being ICU rated has been vetted and approved by the icu to meets it's standards. Or the ICU is knowingly misleading it's members.

You can have a tournament refuse entry to men, people over 65 and non club members and the ICU will rate it. So in theory, every tournament could make you a temporary member of their club and refuse you membership of their club and the icu should have no issue in rating your event.

Of course for FIDE, you must meet the ICU and FIDE rules for a tournament to be rated. FIDE rules are clear, the ICU rules aren't. We need to sort out the ICU rules.

Sparks

reunion wrote: »

If a tournament wants to be ICU rated, can it refuse entry to women? Men? Black people? Peadophiles? Specific chess club members? And still be rated by the ICU?

Well, the first three groups are in that list of specific criteria you aren't allowed discriminate on under the equality acts that I linked to above so they're special cases covered by the law, along with a few others. The fourth group ought to be banned from any event involving minors (I would have thought, what with child protection policies, the ISC's code of ethics regarding children and sport and so on); and the fifth is what's been argued about here, but it's pretty solidly protected by law that you can refuse service to an individual (there's also the point that the first four of those are groups, not individuals, and thus there are whole volumes of arguments that apply there which do not apply in the case of an individual).

If the ICU wanted to withhold rating an event over a dispute like this, and things got tetchy, I'd hate to be the ICU going into court to say that they withheld rating an event despite not having any hard written rules on the matter, and with the plaintiff listing lost earnings due to the event being refused a service the club would presumably have paid for via its dues without the ICU being covered by an established framework of rules (and not something put in place retroactively or on the fly).

And honestly, that would be a fairly solid and reasonable lawsuit to bring by comparison to some of the successful lawsuits that have been taken in Irish sport over the last decade or so. Whether or not someone would actually go that far, who knows. But if they wanted to, the option would definitely be there, and NGBs generally have to take that into account (it's why most have legal insurance that covers at least the committee officers so that if the NGB loses a case, they don't lose their homes).

mikhail

In the context of Galway, there is now a statement on icu.ie. It seems very strongly worded to me: "grossly discriminative behaviour", "completely unacceptable", "exclusion and suggested public humiliation". However, they've stopped short of not rating it this time.

... we have decided to forward the combined administrative and rating cost for the event to the Galway Chess Club. However if confirmation of payment of this fee has not been received by 12 noon today, Thursday 4th June, the FIDE registration for this event will be removed ...

Ficheall

In light of that new ICU post, it should probably be pointed out that actually the ICU had suggested that the player in question offer a written promise to behave, and Galway had agreed to let the player in question play under such a promise of good behaviour. Then the ICU sent an email at 00.18 this morning saying that since Galway had barred a player without giving good reason, then if Galway had not promised, by noon today, to pay a fee of €300 by noon tomorrow (Friday), then the tournament would not be FIDE-rated.
It's past noon now, so I guess we'll see how this plays out...

Sparks

Hm. I wonder if they had a solicitor review that public statement from the point of view of defamation before they made it?

eclipsechaser

It's almost a thing of beauty that the statement is preceeded by the Child Protection Policy.

reunion

Ficheall wrote: »

to pay a fee of €300 by noon tomorrow (Friday), then the tournament would not be FIDE-rated.
It's past noon now, so I guess we'll see how this plays out...

€300? With less then 12 hours notice? Why is the icu executive so incompetent

This isn't the first time they decided to rush a decision on a tournament. The executive have made some very rash decisions this year with zero transparency. And I'd like to see how and why they think Galway had no reason. This is untrue. Galway has a reason that some members of the executive do not like, there is a difference.

Sparks

Hm.
Quick question. If the FIDE fee was due at noon today and the statement was made sometime after 00:01 today according to the website timestamp, does that mean that the ICU had not paid the FIDE fee as of midnight yesterday? Or did they pay the FIDE fee already, and then seek it back, and FIDE agreed (sorry, having a hard time keeping a straight face with that), and now Galway is asked to pay it?

I mean, most NGBs don't wait until 12 hours before a deadline before dealing with fees and the like for international governing bodies because of the fun and games that can accompany international money transfer mechanisms.

Maybe someone in Galway should contact FIDE about the status of the fee directly?

HaraldSchmidt

FIDE adds charges for services to the ICU's bill, which normally gets paid once or twice a year. All ICU would have to do is to say they accept the charge for rating this rapid tournament.

BTW, where does the €300 come from? That seems a bit steep. Rating the event using Mark Orr's wonderful software takes about 3 minutes of work by the rating officer. According to FIDE's page about Financial Regulations, Section 9.2 says registration of Swiss events, such as the Galway rapid, would cost 1€ per player. There doesn't seem to be a separate charge for rating these events. So a more reasonable fee would likely be just the FIDE charge, which I guess would be between 50-100€

Sparks

So the ICU would be proposing that they invoice Galway for a FIDE-provided service?
Hmmm. You'd want to be careful with rates and things for that sort of thing, it'd be horribly open to misinterpretation...

Retd.LoyolaCpt

Beginning to sound like the ICU are trying to make a profit from Irish tournaments if they're charging 300 euro for what should only cost 1 euro for each player. I hope a full account is being kept so we know where this money is going.

mikhail

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

Beginning to sound like the ICU are trying to make a profit from Irish tournaments if they're charging 300 euro for what should only cost 1 euro for each player. I hope a full account is being kept so we know where this money is going.

There are other FIDE fees they have to deal with, but I would also like to see that figure explained.

Sparks

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

I hope a full account is being kept so we know where this money is going.

Danville

I do not accept that ICU ever rates tournaments.
In point of fact it instead rates the individual results of its members who take part in tournaments.

This in effect means that ICU can never refuse to rate an event.

The only benefit a member gets from ICU is his/her individual rating.

reunion

HaraldSchmidt wrote: »

BTW, where does the €300 come from?

It's the €300 they gave the galway congress as a grant this year. They seem to be issuing a fine in conjunction with a rating fee.

The icu paid roughly €350 for 6 months this time last year.

The have also given approval for this tournament to be rated. I'm not sure why they are revoking it when nothing in the icu rules state that the 2 individuals must be allowed entry

HaraldSchmidt

From what I have heard from a member of the executive, this notice was not put up after a decision by the executive.

reunion

An example of a FIDE rated event which permits refusing entry to players.

http://www.doeberlcup.com.au/rules.shtml

mikhail

mikhail wrote: »

In the context of Galway, there is now a statement on icu.ie. It seems very strongly worded to me: "grossly discriminative behaviour", "completely unacceptable", "exclusion and suggested public humiliation". However, they've stopped short of not rating it this time.

All of the language I highlighted has been removed from the ICU statement.

Ficheall

mikhail wrote: »

All of the language I highlighted has been removed from the ICU statement.

The entire statement has been replaced - not to worry though, you can find a screenshot of the original here (bottom of page).

reunion

It's interesting the icu hasn't posted any information as to why the Galway Club would not be permitted to refuse entry to this (or any) individual. Or even cited any reason for this except a member complained but didn't mention what rule galway were in breach of.

They would of course also have to explain why a club tournament could only be open to members of that club but the club could refuse membership to individuals. Or does every club need to get their membership lists checked for icu approval too?

The ICU would also need to explain the gap in time notifying the organisers and show clear proof that all actions were sanctioned by the entire ICU executive, including the extortion money. Or should I say rating fee plus extortion fee. Let's see executive minutes which clearly state this.

reunion

The British chess championship, 4NCL and FIDE online tournaments permit refusing a player entry without giving a reason.

Maybe the icu doesn't want professional and long lasting tournaments?