Armstrong Cup 2017/2018

zeitnot

cdeb wrote: »

macelligott wrote: »

It was clearly “sharp practice” for Gonzaga to only declare 8 players on the Armstrong including Maze & Jessel and as a consequence be able to play Gordon Freeman on their Heidenfeld team. [...] The main purpose of the exercise was obviously to support their Heidenfeld team in its bid to be promoted.

I'd agree with that.   Unfortunately, no rule was broken in so doing.   Looking back at previous years, they've tended to declare a squad of 7 plus Maze too, albeit that Maze has played more often (here's their 2015/16 squad for example).   Granted, this year they've added Jessel to the 8, and neither have played of course.

zeitnot wrote: »

You have missed the entire point of the example in [2], which was to ask what the effect would be, under rule 6.7, on another player, Y, rated >150 points less, and who had already played three games as a substitute in a higher division. Y's team captain would like to play him as a substitute a fourth time; is this allowed under rule 6.7?

If I missed the point above, it's because it wasn't made.

Player Y, rated 150 points less than Player X (declared on the BEA, but with one game each for the Heidenfeld, Ennis and O'Hanlon and none for the BEA), cannot either play a fourth time for a team above the BEA, or indeed be declared at the start of the season on a team above the BEA, because Player X is a declared player on that panel.   So Y cannot jump ahead of X.

I'm also genuinely curious about your answer to my query posed twice before - would you expect a penalty to have applied to Gonzaga if Gordon had played against Kilkenny instead of Eoghan (i.e. if Gordon had been the first player to sub four times, and Eoghan had subbed the fourth time after that)?

I didn't explicitly ask about the effect on Y, true. In the context of a discussion on rule 6.7, I thought it was implied; why else would we be concerned with whether X was "playing for" a team?

Anyway, I would answer the BEA question differently. I do see where you're coming from, and I can't say your answer is unreasonable. It just doesn't seem the most natural reading to me, or the best fit for the rest of the rules. The way I'd read it, Y can play for the O'Hanlon but not any higher division. It comes down to what "playing for that club in a lower division" means. I read it as meaning that at least one actual game has been played regardless of declared or substitute). Under the facts in the example, X is "playing for that club" in the Heidenfeld, Ennis, and O'Hanlon, but not (yet) in the BEA.

A differemt possible interpretation (which I think is the one you have) is that "playing on" is intended to mean the declared team as long as the player is still allowed to play on that team under the 4 substitutions rule, and if not, whatever team the 4 substitutions rule specifies.

The first interpretation seems to me, in addition to the better natural read, to be a better fit for the rules, because "play" is used all over section 6, and everywhere else it seems to mean playing an actual game. Under 6.3, for example, Maze and Jessel can't play in the last round because they haven't played any game during the year; the fact that they were declared from day one doesn't enter into it for rule 6.3. In that case at least, it's not a matter of semantics, it's a very clear rule.

So to your question about what would have happened if GF had played his fourth Amstrong game before EC had played his. Following the first interpretation, we look to see if a >150 hgher rated player is playing in any lower division, i.e., has played in any games this season, whether declared or substitute. In this case GF has played in the Heidenfeld, so EC can't play a fourth game as substitute in the Armstrong. I gather that under your interpretation, you would say that because GF is not allowed to play any further games in the Heidenfeld after playing his fourth in the Armstrong, you would say that he had previously been "playing in a lower division", but isn't any longer. I follow the argument but just don't agree with it. What if GF didn't play his fourth Armstrong game but simply made a promise that he wouldn't play any further games in the Heidenfeld? An analogous argument could be made that he was therefore no longer "playing for a team in a lower division". "Is playing", to me, means playing this season so far.

All that said, the one thing that seems clear is that opinions differ and that the rules could be clarified. If I were the team captain, I'd check and double-check before playing a substitute a fourth time, and preferably get an opinion from the league controller in advance.

(One person's "sharp practice" is another person's "careful team planning". I wouldn't blame Gonzaga for trying to maximize the chances for all of their teams. But the declarations made were such that team selections were very constrained and it made it easy for something to go wrong.)

checknraise

Any interpretation of the rules that a player is deemed illegal and can no longer play is wrong. In no other sport or game would that be the case.

Whatever the outcome of the appeal there are questions that have to be asked about the morals of certain individuals.

In the Heidenfeld why was one Elm Mount player rating updated mid season? Was any explanation passed on to the team captains?

In the Armstrong why did Trinity's 150 rule break only change the result of Elm Mount's game and not Gonzaga? It was only changed at the weekend after being highlighted by Trinity.

Why did Elm Mount deliberately wait until after round 9 to highlight their interpretation of the rule break?

sodacat11

Can you imagine the uproar if on the day of a schools cup senior rugby final between say Gonzaga and Terenure, Terenure turned up with two or three New Zealand players who had just joined the school that morning?
Gonzaga have bent the Armstrong rules as near to breaking point as was possible this year.First by only declaring eight players so Freeman could play in the Heidenfeld and then by their late signings on Saturday. What they did may be within the rules but it certainly is not within the spirit of the rules. You wouldn't mind so much if they already didn't have everything stacked in their favour to begin with given that they have so many high rated players.

macelligott

Checknraise Don’t insult me! “Why did Elm Mount deliberately wait until after round 9 to highlight their interpretation of the rule break?” On the contrary - I advised the Gonzaga captain at the time of our round 3 match that he could run into problems with the 150 point rule and advised him to read the rules carefully! So Elm Mount didn’t “deliberately wait until after round 9”. I made no public comment until after points were deducted and the matter became an issue on boards.ie I ask you Checknraise to with withdraw your scurrilous remarks immediately!

cdeb

zeitnot wrote: »

I didn't explicitly ask about the effect on Y, true.

Phew. Thought I was going mad.

zeitnot wrote: »

A different possible interpretation (which I think is the one you have) is that "playing on" is intended to mean the declared team as long as the player is still allowed to play on that team under the 4 substitutions rule, and if not, whatever team the 4 substitutions rule specifies.

Correct. (And here I'd like to claim the experience of having been a divisional controller for a number of years, and having questions like this thrown at me quite regularly)

The key is whether the player in your example is allowed to play on the BEA. And rule 6.4 indicates that he can -

Prior to the commencement of play in each division, clubs [...] must submit the names of players selected for their respective teams. These nominated players shall be deemed to be the declared team

Rule 6.6 then says -

...a player declared in a lower division may play as a substitute in a higher division

This covers the appearances for the O'Hanlon, Ennis and Heidenfeld - but the player is still part of the declared BEA team, because the latter clause of 6.6 (about the fourth and subsequent sub appearances) has not yet kicked in.

zeitnot wrote:

So to your question about what would have happened if GF had played his fourth Amstrong game before EC had played his.

I agree your interpretation ties in with your reading of the rule. But I just don't see that it makes any sense.

The aim of all these 150 point rules is to ensure that teams line out in rough order of strength; you can't have a case where you need a sub in the Armstrong, he's 1000, so you stick him on board 1 and take the points elsewhere. Or you can't declare a 1000 on the Armstrong in order to stack the Heidenfeld and get promotion - that sort of stuff.

In that context, what's the point of saying that Eoghan can't follow Gordon onto the Armstrong? Why can't two players move up from a lower team?

It'd be rare, of course - but you might have a case where one player leaves the team midway through the season (to return home, for family reasons, etc, etc), and a player is pulled up from a lower team. Then on the last day of the leagues, another player is pulled up just to fill the team. I'd say if you went back through the LeinsterChess website, you'd find a couple of examples of this exact thing happening (I will freely admit I couldn't be bothered doing that!). The last day of the leagues would be the best place to look, as lower teams' seasons are finished and pulling players up doesn't matter any more.

So long as, once on the higher team, Eoghan continues to play below Gordon, there should be no issue. And I think if (if) we accept this logic, then your definition of "has played" has to be struck out.


Two other thoughts occur -

1) Should it not be the Heidenfeld penalised instead of the Armstrong? After all, it was the Heidenfeld who sought to gain an advantage. (That said, Gordon didn't play any Heidenfeld games after Eoghan's fourth sub appearance - so it's not as simple as docking the Heidenfeld points for games Gordon played)
2) There was comments last year that the Armstrong was too pedestrian because Gonzaga were too dominant. On that basis, the division could do with a Gonzaga B team. If Gonzaga do get promoted from the Heidenfeld, next year's Armstrong will be the most competitive in a number of years.

zeitnot

Once we get into what the rules "should" say, we're talking about a different set of rules. I can well believe it's possible to change, simplify, and generally improve these rules. Players can play as a substitute up to three times in any division above the one they're declared in, but not a fourth time under any circumstances: that would be much simpler. Or eliminate all the rigmarole about "declaration", ignore a player's first three appearances in any division, and allow the player to play in any division at least as high as the highest division that's left: that would also work. Either way, players and team captains would be able to figure out whether a player is eligible to play without having to search through the latest scorecards from other divisions, which is always going to be hard and subject to error.

cdeb

I don't think those changes are needed tbh.

Is there really a need to stop players from subbing a fourth time?

Team declarations aren't really that much of a rigmarole. Clubs will sort teams anyway so captains know who to contact for games, and so players know when they're playing. (To be honest, I'm not entirely sure from reading your suggestion how exactly it'd work)

I also don't think working out who's eligible to play is as difficult as you suggest. I'd cite the vanishingly small number of transgressions down the years as proof of this.

checknraise

macelligott wrote: »

Checknraise Don’t insult me! “Why did Elm Mount deliberately wait until after round 9 to highlight their interpretation of the rule break?” On the contrary - I advised the Gonzaga captain at the time of our round 3 match that he could run into problems with the 150 point rule and advised him to read the rules carefully! So Elm Mount didn’t “deliberately wait until after round 9”. I made no public comment until after points were deducted and the matter became an issue on boards.ie I ask you Checknraise to with withdraw your scurrilous remarks immediately!

It may have been highlighted to Gonzaga but Elm Mount deliberately delayed bringing it to the LCU's attention until the end of the season. This was confirmed by two of your teammates. They were surprised it wasn't brought up after round 10.

Gonzaga read the rule as per your advice and agreed the rule had been broken and expected a 1 or 1.5 point penalty not the 5.5 that has been given.

L1m1tless

Checknraise at al, a debate on the rules is great, but can we please keep the accusations and personal comments out of it.

Thanks

sodacat11

As a matter of interest , does a player have to be a paid up member of the ICU to play in the leagues? I know that in some competitions you are not eligible to win a prize unless you are.

cdeb

Yes. Otherwise points deductions apply. A team loses their entire match score if any one player is not an ICU member.

sodacat11

cdeb wrote: »

Yes. Otherwise points deductions apply. A team loses their entire match score if any one player is not an ICU member.

Do they have to be paid up BEFORE a match starts or can they join the ICU afterwards?

cdeb

You can join after

(Or that's how it works in practice at least)

sodacat11

Well the two players that Gonzaga used against Rathmines on Saturday aren't on the ICU rating list, is it possible that they aren't members??

cdeb

In practice, they have until shortly before the final round to register them.

The aim of the game is to get registration fees paid, not to dock points. If the points were irretrievably lost, why would you bother paying the fees?

eclipsechaser

I don't keep more than a passing look at the leagues but how is anyone upset with two friends of Gonzaga playing at the weekend? Pall played all season for the club during the 4NCL (http://www.4nclresults.co.uk/2017-18/4ncl/7/3n/export/#t1) and Fiona was over visiting and is good friends with the guys. There was another regular 2100 who could have been playing so she wasn't even strengthening the team. It's laughable to comparable it to flying in GM's with no affiliation to the club and p(l)aying them.

What's the problem? Am I missing something?

sodacat11

eclipsechaser wrote: »

What's the problem? Am I missing something?

Yes, I think that you are. Firstly it is yet another example of the sense of entitlement that is drilled into people at elite rich rugby playing schools (and I should know because I went to the daddy of them all). Kids are literally told that they are the creme de la creme, the master race, that the world is their oyster, that money and influence is power and that they are going to be part of the golden circle , the captains of industry etc etc and that it is their heritage. When something threatens to halt your progress you pick up the phone, call one of your old school buddies and hey presto the problem is solved.
This may be a bit extreme in the present context but the rationale is exactly the same. The Armstrong title is ours, we own it, we are entitled to it. How dare anyone try to take it from us. Let's see if there is any legal loopholes we can exploit. If we can't win the Armstrong with our present team then we'll bloody well get a new team and show those upstarts who is boss. Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam !!
Secondly. Gonzaga knew who their opponents on the Rathmines team would be and could prepare for them,Rathmines could not do the same.
Thirdly, Rathmines , who are fighting relegation, had to face a stronger Gonzaga team than any of their rivals did.
Fourthly,Carl Jackson (a 2100 player) was present watching the games, he should not have had to stand aside for visitors to take his place.
Gonzaga already had all that any club could want. They have won numerous titles.They have by far the highest rated team.They play in the 4NCL. I hear that some of their players got coached by Aagard and who knows who else. They get everything handed to them on a golden platter. The only surprise is that clubs like Dublin and Elm Mount have managed to challenge them this season but by Jasus I can assure you that Gonzaga won't let it happen again. They are probably already scouting Europe for the nucleus of next years team.

cdeb

That is almost entirely utter nonsense.

Gonzaga have done more than most clubs for the game here. Taken it on themselves to overthrow the lunatic asylum that was destroying the game here. Arranged a variety of much-praised new events, from a revamped Irish Senior Championships, to closed all-play-all events, to norm tournaments. They've blooded titled players (some nabbed from other clubs, it's true) and strengthened the top tiers markedly. They run one of the biggest events in the Irish calendar, with a remarkable array of foreign players to spice up the top section further.

Should they be docked points in the Armstrong? Yes.

Should they be docked 5.5 points and be told one of their players is banned for the season? No.

Should they be bringing in foreign players, even if they are mates? It's dubious. I certainly can't criticise Curragh and defend Gonzaga.

If there were more clubs like Gonzaga, would the game here would be much healthier? Absolutely

Retd.LoyolaCpt

All of this nonsense coming from a Chelsea fan

ComDubh

sodacat11 wrote: »

They are probably already scouting Europe for the nucleus of next years team.

Good for them if they are. If you and your clubmates did the same thing, imagine what the Armstrong might be like next year!

Tim Harding

Do we really want a situation where Gordon Freeman can only get into the Gonzaga third team?

Retd.LoyolaCpt

Or Tim Harding playing in division 4

Tim Harding

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

Or Tim Harding playing in division 4

That was my choice (made last May) as evening play in FIDE-rated events is not pleasant at my age, especially mid-winter.

Why not let the ancients play in lower divisions irrespective of the 150-rule?

Anyway TCD-2 is going up to Division 3 next season, hopefully as champions!

cdeb

Tim Harding wrote: »

Do we really want a situation where Gordon Freeman can only get into the Gonzaga third team?

Do we want a situation where the game is being held back by smaller clubs?

Tim Harding

cdeb wrote: »

Do we want a situation where the game is being held back by smaller clubs?

I am not sure what you mean by that.

My comment about Gordo was a joke of course. It will be interesting to see how Gonzaga line up in the Armstrong next year if they get promoted. Will they go for balance and try to get 1-2 or will they have a clearly stronger first team? I would think one good idea would be for Henry Li to play board 1 in the second team as it would help his progress.

Perhaps we shouldn't complain too much that they packed their Heidenfeld team (as long as they don't win the Armstrong of course ) because it will make for a more interesting season in 2018/19.

sodacat11

cdeb wrote: »

That is almost entirely utter nonsense.

Gonzaga have done more than most clubs for the game here. Taken it on themselves to overthrow the lunatic asylum that was destroying the game here. Arranged a variety of much-praised new events, from a revamped Irish Senior Championships, to closed all-play-all events, to norm tournaments. They've blooded titled players (some nabbed from other clubs, it's true) and strengthened the top tiers markedly. They run one of the biggest events in the Irish calendar, with a remarkable array of foreign players to spice up the top section further.

If there were more clubs like Gonzaga, would the game here would be much healthier? Absolutely

The ICU and the Gonzaga Congress, both of which are a credit to Gonzaga, have nothing to do with the points I made regarding the Armstrong. This wasn't a case as some people are trying to make out of two old pals just happening to drop in for a cuppa and then deciding to play a game of league chess. It was a clearly pre meditated and well thought out plan to try and use whatever means necessary to retain the Armstrong title.
You are right, the game would be much healthier if all clubs were like Gonzaga because then we would have a much better league. However it is rare occurrence that any club can challenge Gonzaga dominance so when it does happen these "lesser" clubs should be allowed to compete on a level playing field and not get stomped on because Gonzaga players are well connected and can bring in strong players from abroad.

sodacat11

ComDubh wrote: »

Good for them if they are. If you and your clubmates did the same thing, imagine what the Armstrong might be like next year!

If I and my clubmates did the same thing next year then I and my clubmates would be playing in the Heidenfeld and not the Armstrong.
I am all for foreign players coming to play in Irish events but the Leinster Leagues are domestic competitions and should be for residents or long term visitors only.

sodacat11

Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »

All of this nonsense coming from a Chelsea fan

Sadly one would want to be slightly crazy to support Chelsea these days:(

eclipsechaser

sodacat11 wrote: »

Yes, I think that you are. Firstly it is yet another example of the sense of entitlement that is drilled into people at elite rich rugby playing schools (and I should know because I went to the daddy of them all). Kids are literally told that they are the creme de la creme, the master race, that the world is their oyster, that money and influence is power and that they are going to be part of the golden circle , the captains of industry etc etc and that it is their heritage. When something threatens to halt your progress you pick up the phone, call one of your old school buddies and hey presto the problem is solved.

Are you auditioning for Una Mulally's column? :P Aside from being insanely prejudicial, I don't know what lessons you had in school but we certainly don't teach that here. Literally none of those phrases were ever used when I attended either. The only one that came close was being repeatedly told that we were "the cream of the crop" followed instantly by "rich and thick".

If you want to check whether you're being even-handed or prejudiced, just quote back where you called Adare or the Curragh "elite" and "entitled".

I find it depressing that you view people through this prism. I went to the school despite being supported almost solely by a single parent. I was happy to come back to teach because I thought it was a caring, supportive place. The school has an Access Programme for students whose parents are on low incomes. It would be a pity if you continued to apply these clichés because they simply don't fit the majority of parents and students I interact with.

In terms of the Armstrong, I won't pretend to speak for them as I'm not involved at all. But from what it appears to me, they had a player unexpectedly banned and replaced him with a player who has played all season for the club in the 4NCL - Pall plays with members of the team regularly; I don't see the issue. They also swapped a 2100 for a 2100 who is a friend and over visiting. I'm surprised someone would be so annoyed to be playing Fiona rather than Carl (again). The team already know that the league is lost due to the ruling. It would be a complete waste flying people in to play for the club in search of a title that's already gone. Maybe there is someone funding frivolous flights - but I really don't believe it.

sodacat11

I've never heard of Una Mulally but no doubt she will probably play for Gonzaga next season if her rating is high enough.
I did criticize Adare (and Bray) , many times, when they got up to similar gamesmanship. I can't remember saying anything about the Curragh, probably because what they did was going to make little difference one way or another.
I have no bias where Gonzaga is concerned and have often praised their running of the ICU and their Gonzaga Classic. I just have the habit of calling a spade a spade.
Perhaps I do get annoyed by Jesuits, Holy Ghost Fathers and all other religious organisations of every denomination (I was tempted to say cults). I think people may as well be brainwashed to believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
You will also note that I said a few posts back that all the Gonzaga Armstrong team were individually very decent guys and good sportsmen.
I do believe in the sense of entitlement that is propagated in all elite schools. Is it not true that Gonzaga only takes academically gifted students? I am pretty sure that's how it was a few years ago but I am open to correction.
Gonzaga have won the Armstrong enough times, they should give someone else a chance instead of trying to stamp out any opposition.