Armstrong 2019/20 season

sodacat11

spidersweb wrote: »

While I never believed in the tooth fairy I confess I indulged the possibility.


I was wrong, very wrong.

I did try to think what events could cause every single room in a huge school to be "unavailable" but after discounting fire, flood, earthquake, marauding grizzly bears and an invasion by scorpions I ran out of feasible possibilities leaving only the 4NCL as the cause for the non fulfillment of the fixture.

bduffy

sodacat11 wrote: »

I did try to think what events could cause every single room in a huge school to be "unavailable" but after discounting fire, flood, earthquake, marauding grizzly bears and an invasion by scorpions I ran out of feasible possibilities leaving only the 4NCL as the cause for the non fulfillment of the fixture.

Just to note, Div 5 match vs Curragh was played in the Curragh due to non-availability of venue.

sodacat11

bduffy wrote: »

Just to note, Div 5 match vs Curragh was played in the Curragh due to non-availability of venue.

Well they could hardly hold it in Gonzaga after cancelling the Armstrong game. Maybe there was a scorpion infestation after all but even so then why could the match not have been played in Bray?

macelligott

And today’s results anybody?

sodacat11

macelligott wrote: »

And today’s results anybody?

Watford 3 - 0 Liverpool :pac:

spidersweb

bduffy wrote: »

Just to note, Div 5 match vs Curragh was played in the Curragh due to non-availability of venue.

Thanks for that.



At least this part has been clarified but as has been pointed out, there was no reason that the same thing could not have been done today with a switch to Bray, or even a choice of other venue by Gonzaga or the controller.


We now have two examples of a change of venue within hours today yet we are to accept that Gonazaga had to have the fixture changed to a different date.



Maybe there was a scorpion infestation after all?

cdeb

spidersweb wrote: »

If plenty of notice had been given to Bray of a request to change the match date then maybe that could have been considered with a view to having the match/games played IN ADVANCE of the Feb 29th fixture (today).

This is as interesting point. I understand (whether it's true or not I don't know) that Gonzaga first approached Bray a month ago about this, but Bray never responded.

Now Bray would still be entirely within their rights to reject Gonzaga's suggestion of a rearrange of course, but to not answer at all seems unnecessary and can't have helped the situation overall.

spidersweb

cdeb wrote: »

This is as interesting point. I understand (whether it's true or not I don't know) that Gonzaga first approached Bray a month ago about this, but Bray never responded.

Now Bray would still be entirely within their rights to reject Gonzaga's suggestion of a rearrange of course, but to not answer at all seems unnecessary and can't have helped the situation overall.

I can't claim to know for a fact if it is true or not that Bray were approached a month ago but from what I have just been sent today, it seems that indeed there is something truly rotten that has gone on here.

Astounding actions which seem to confirm beyond doubt that Sodcat was spot on all along. If this exchange below is authentic (no reason to believe otherwise, but of course we should all keep an open mind and not go by this conclusively- yet anyway) then this is just deplorable.

On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 07:04, Xxxx Xxxxx wrote:

Hi Xxx,

xxxx xxxxxxx has been on to me and has said that you have agreed to push Bray V Gonzaga A back a week. Can you confirm this so that I may update the league fixtures?

Thanks,
Xxxx Xxxxxx

On Tue 4 Feb 2020, 19:57 Xxx Xxxxxxx, wrote:

Hi XxxxI can confirm that this is complete and utter BS
not only is there no such agreement there has been no contact whatsoever from Xxxxxxx or anyone else on that team
we expect to play the match as scheduled

Rgds Xxx

Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 21:12
Subject: Re: BRAY V GONZAGA A

Hi Xxx,

Now I may well have misinterpreted a request from Gonzaga as them having had a conversation with yourselves. As I was asked second hand to look into the matter. I would ask that you give some thought into helping reschedule some games as they are one of the few teams willing to represent Ireland in the 4NCL.

I have received this request from a friend in Gonzaga, not Xxxx himself so I'm pretty sure something has been lost in translation and I will clarify things with him.

Kind Regards,

Xxxx Xxxxxx

Sorry but this frankly blows my mind. Astonishingly it suggests all manner of awful things going on. Not least of which is the preposterous idea that the 4 NCL has anything whatsoever to do with the Armstrong Cup, and how it's fixtures should be managed. While the notion of a team "representing Ireland" is just ludicrous stuff.

More power to any team or club that arrange to and succeed to field a team in the League of another country and especially one as good as the 4 NCL. However, this carry on is bizarre.

I have also been given to understand that Bray has no interest in any walkovers, let alone a 8-0 default, but at this stage is trying to somehow field a team of comparable strength as they would have had today if the fixtures had not been changed. How exactly this will be agreed and arranged I also do not know details of either.

At the very least some action should taken to avoid this kind of situation again as it is just so unfair to not only Bray and the more serious contenders Elm Mount and Kilkenny but to everyone who plays in the Leagues and wants to see a fair win for whatever club takes the Armstrong Cup, be it Gonazaga A or Elm Mount - Kilkenny

VanMorrison

Well this is an interesting development.

League Controller(s), Gonzaga CC you have the right to reply and publish your emails on the subject.

We are waiting ...

DmanDmythDledge

bduffy wrote: »

Just to note, Div 5 match vs Curragh was played in the Curragh due to non-availability of venue.

When was the request made?

macelligott

Match results from yesterday ?

anchor4208

Here's the relevant LCU rule on this issue. There is no other rule that refers to the re-arranging of games or matches.

7.7 Subject to agreement between the respective team captains, games may be played
in advance of the scheduled date. If a team wishes to postpone games in a match,
the approval of the divisional controller must be obtained in advance, which
approval shall be given only in extenuating circumstances.

A few points have been raised which in my view are irrelevant.

1. Whether the Gonzaga captain attempted to contact the Bray captain, and whether the Bray captain responded. This isn't relevant because we have rules. If the Gonzaga captain did indeed attempt the Bray captain, the Bray captain isn't obliged to do anything at all. Games may be rescheduled if both captains agree - if one captain says no, or if one captain doesn't reply to requests, the effect is the same, they haven't reached agreement.

2. Speculation on the motivation of the divisional controller. The current controller for the division has been doing an excellent job for many years. That doesn't mean that he hasn't and won't ever make a mistake. If he has made an incorrect judgement in this case, it should be viewed as merely that. Any further speculation and conspiracy theories are probably wrong and definitely aren't helpful.

3. The unavailability of the venue. There's all sorts of reasons why a venue might not be available. Again, speculation as to whether this is true or not isn't relevant. The precedent exists that where the home team can't provide the venue, the away team are given the option to host the match. Therefore, the availability of the venue in Gonzaga is not relevant to the postponing of the match. The fixture date has primacy over the venue location. Just to add on this, there is good reason why he fixture date is more important than the venue. A team might be made up of players who aren't local, and this is legitimate. As a result, that team might use the fixture list to plan travel and accommodation arrangements for their players well in advance of a fixture. The Bray panel is made up of players from all over Ireland, so it is reasonable to presume that they take the fixture list seriously for this reason.

The controller does have limited power to postpone 'games in a match', but can only do so in extenuating circumstances. These aren't defined, although one can speculated on the intention. However, if postponement was granted on this occasion because players were playing in an event in a different country, it will set a dangerous precedent. The 4NCL doesn't involve representing Ireland. As such, it is on the same level as any international swiss event anywhere in the world. The LCU should be very careful about establishing a principle which implies that games can be postponed in those circumstances.

The entire Gonzaga Armstrong team didn't play in the 4NCL this weekend. If the controller is using the 4NCL as the reason for postponing, it needs to be established why this extended beyond postponing individual games, and instead involved the postponement of the entire match. If indeed the 4NCL does count as extenuating circumstances for the players who played in it, what were the extenuating circumstances for the other players.

I presume Bray are appealing this to the LCU executive. In my opinion, on the basis of the rules, they are clearly the injured party in this one. However, it's already an awkward situation to resolve. Once the divisional controller made his original decision, it was legitimate for Gonzaga to not turn up on Feb 29th. If the LCU now decide that the divisional controller's decision was wrong, that's not Gonzaga's fault. If they had been told in advance of yesterday that they weren't getting a postponement, they could have cobbled some form of a team together, but they weren't told that. Tough one for the LCU. I expect that only reasonable outcome is for Bray to be told that the wrong original decision was made, offer them an apology, and offer them the right to host a rescheduled match.

sodacat11

You make a lot of very good points anchor but the upshot of it all is that Gonzaga get to have their cake and eat it. I have to wonder what would have happened if the League Controller had told Gonzaga from the beginning "NO, you may not postpone the match" ? Would Gonzaga have defaulted their 4NCL fixture?? I doubt it somehow.

DmanDmythDledge

anchor4208 wrote: »

Here's the relevant LCU rule on this issue. There is no other rule that refers to the re-arranging of games or matches.

7.7 Subject to agreement between the respective team captains, games may be played
in advance of the scheduled date. If a team wishes to postpone games in a match,
the approval of the divisional controller must be obtained in advance, which
approval shall be given only in extenuating circumstances.

A few points have been raised which in my view are irrelevant.

1. Whether the Gonzaga captain attempted to contact the Bray captain, and whether the Bray captain responded. This isn't relevant because we have rules. If the Gonzaga captain did indeed attempt the Bray captain, the Bray captain isn't obliged to do anything at all. Games may be rescheduled if both captains agree - if one captain says no, or if one captain doesn't reply to requests, the effect is the same, they haven't reached agreement.

...

Interestingly, the way the rule is worded (which is quite poorly written I feel) does not require agreement between captains for games to be postponed. In practice that obviously hasn't been the case but could open a can of worms if the rule is not reworded and also for examples of extenauting circumstances to be stated, which obviously would be non-exhaustive.

VanMorrison

Based on the cited rule 7.7 the League Controller has no power to postpone a match.

In any event 'extenuating circumstances' probably does not include a failure to book a room, that your team is playing elsewhere in a non-representative match, a disinclination to play at a different venue on the scheduled day and the obviously naked attempt to re-write the playing schedule, insisting that you will only play on a date and venue where your full strength team is available.

These are all forseeable problems and part of the rough and tumble of the sporting life.

It's a ghastly decision by the League Controller to put the interests of Gonzaga CC above the Armstrong and fair play. <snip>.

Mod edit - see note below

VanMorrison

macelligott wrote: »

Match results from yesterday ?

Gonzaga 4.5 - 3.5 Barbican 2


Gonzaga avoid relegation :rolleyes:

macelligott

R9 Blanchardstown v Ballinasloe result anyone ?

cdeb

Mod note - it's been commented before on thread that there's a lot of unnecessarily aggressive comments towards volunteer committee members. While I don't mind the ins and outs of the matter being discussed, the thread doesn't need repeated calls for league controllers to be sacked/resign. There wouldn't be a Leinster Leagues without people to run it, and they shouldn't be pilloried for making decisions. Any other comments of that nature will be deleted, and posters warned/infracted if necessary.

DmanDmythDledge

VanMorrison wrote: »

Based on the cited rule 7.7 the League Controller has no power to postpone a match.]

The rule actually states the complete opposite.

Whether or not extenuating circumstances applied in this instance is a different consideration.

spidersweb

DmanDmythDledge wrote: »

The rule actually states the complete opposite.

Whether or not extenuating circumstances applied in this instance is a different consideration.

Actually no it doesn't. Rather it does indeed make it clear that in the first instance and default situation the League Controller has no power to postpone a match, but qualifies this somewhat by secondarily adding that this is then subject to "extenuating circumstances" which, as you correctly say, is then open to some interpretation.

Though, in this case here, as there is precedent and recent practical experience with, just going by this thread, two cases in the Armstrong Cup alone of the BalBriggan V Elm Mount match, and ironically enough the Gonzaga V Curragh match which both show that there is no imperative at all to cite "extenuating circumstances" to make an exception and violate the rules.

The core issues here is the fact that the reason given to Bray seems to have been a venue problem, while some communications/information seem to indicate that this official reason given to Bray may not really have been the full or genuine story. That then calls in question the impartiality of the two controllers or the choices they made in this case.

They are human beings and subject to making mistakes. The work they do, which should always be appreciated, does not put them above critical examination. They are allowed to make errors and still be appreciated.

I don't think, even at this stage, there is much serious doubt that they made a balls of things, but they may well have been misled or manipulated, which is something that should be looked into perhaps- just with a view to avoid this in future, as much as possible.

In any case they should not be subject to abuse or personal attacks, that is for sure. I think in all this thread there has only been a single poster who has done this. Such is the nature of public forums like this.

The controllers, as has been mentioned, do a heck a lot of good work and get things right so much of the time, and doubtless will be acting to try resolve this problem in as fair a manner as they can.

The problem usually with these type of situations is that there is a rush to deny, obfuscate or worse. Whereas a simple admission of, ah yeah we got this wrong alright, almost always results in diffusing things and everybody then trying resolve things amicably together and then move on with a common purpose.

Then everybody has learned something and with such future scenarios being even less likely to happen again then. Also demonizing Gonzaga is wrong too because the choices made and actions taken were probably down to one or two individuals who also just got it wrong (how much of the time do they get it right- 90%? 80%?) but should be called out for that and dissuaded from doing the same again.

Useful for everyone to not have it all swept under the carpet though.

spidersweb

cdeb wrote: »

Mod note - it's been commented before on thread that there's a lot of unnecessarily aggressive comments towards volunteer committee members. While I don't mind the ins and outs of the matter being discussed, the thread doesn't need repeated calls for league controllers to be sacked/resign. There wouldn't be a Leinster Leagues without people to run it, and they shouldn't be pilloried for making decisions. Any other comments of that nature will be deleted, and posters warned/infracted if necessary.

A single poster so far has attacked, or called for the controllers to be sacked/resign. Nobody agreed with or condoned that, not one single poster.

As for the notion that there wouldn't be a Leinster Leagues without people to run it? How is saying that relevant to anything? I mean, you could just as easily say that there wouldn't be a Leinster Leagues without people playing chess, or clubs entering teams, but what is that point exactly in stating the obvious?

More relevant is the notion that controllers shouldn't be pilloried for making decisions. Who, other than Van the Man, has, or would, disagree with this? Nobody so far, from what I have seen. Maybe I missed something?

We can surely be critical of bad, or really bad, decisions made by anybody, no matter how good they are, and have been, as controllers? Yes indeed, within reason, and the bounds of temperate and measured comment.

Asking questions and casting doubt on decisions is healthy for everybody if done in a balanced way and backed up with cogent and fair argumentation and or evidence.

Never losing sight of the fact, as you rightly point out, we all have much to be thankful for, and of, because of the controllers and their time given plus their efforts.

sodacat11

I actually think that the Armstrong Controller has been very good this season, he has changed the order of the fixtures (something I called for) and he also scored a Dublin v Balbriggan game 0-0 which was a brave and correct decision. This Gonzaga Bray fiasco is not his fault.

cdeb

sodacat11 wrote: »

I actually think that the Armstrong Controller has been very good this season, he has changed the order of the fixtures (something I called for)

That was the leagues controller btw, not the Armstrong controller

spidersweb

sodacat11 wrote: »

I actually think that the Armstrong Controller has been very good this season, he has changed the order of the fixtures (something I called for) and he also scored a Dublin v Balbriggan game 0-0 which was a brave and correct decision. This Gonzaga Bray fiasco is not his fault.

Not at all clear that it is not his fault yet - we assume it wasn't but he got one thing wrong by not observing the rules correctly. A clue being the fact that the other Gonzaga match V Curragh was played in a different venue. The reason he gave was only about the venue problem (3 times I think) yet you yourself had figured that there was other reasons.

IF, and it is a big IF, the match between Balbriggan V Kilkenny- Stop just as I was writing I checked.


Balbriggan3 – 3 Kilkenny

Board Colour Player Code Rating Result Player


1Black Kanyamarala, Tarun183672172 Adjourned McPhillips, Karl
2 White Kanyamarala, Trisha183682123 Adjourned Wallace, Paul A.



Black O'Donovan, Richard126319981 – 0Quigley, Colm1
White Pachalov, Aleksejus1754819381 – 0Keogh, Eamon

Black Gora, Antonina 180181951½ – ½ O'Dwyer, Fergal

White Hogan, Pat 6111855½ – ½ Kiely, Paul C.

Black Smith, Gerard156816030 – 1 Alkevicius, Arunas

White Nolan, Sean 457217230 – 1 Delaney, Liam

Round 9 Sat 29 Feb 20

Sorry I am not buying innocence anymore. The top two boards from this match are two of the players who were playing for the Gonzaga team yesterday in that 4 NCL match and two of these games have been "adjourned" as was the case before with the Balbriggan V Dublin match for board 1 which ended up being null and void and which you refereed to.

Obviously if the two clubs had a mutual agreement that is fine, but only IF these games had been played IN ADVANCE of the match. There is no reason to be adjourning games like this and the fact that it is, funny enough, the same team as the Armstrong Cup controller makes this wrong

Indeed, despite the fact that the controller does, and has done, great work, in this case it is looking more and more like he is indeed, in part at least, to blame for this chaos.

The suggestion has been made that Gerard was going out of the way to facilitate Gonzaga A team, by changing the fixtures, in combination with then also helping out the Gonzaga 4 NCL team by allowing two Balbriggan players skip their Armstrong match obligations by agreeing to or accepting the "adjournments" and DELAYS instead of playing these games in ADVANCE.

He has serious questions to answer now and I assume he has indeed been responsible (in part at least) for making a real balls of things. Saying that, as it seems so obvious now, in no way takes away from the fact that he is, and generally has done an overwhelmingly good job. This is becoming a bit farcical to be honest.

sodacat11

The Armstrong should not have to play second fiddle to the 4NCL . If dates clash then players must choose which one they want to play in, it is disrespectful to the Armstrong to expect postponements just to facilitate the 4NCL.

spidersweb

sodacat11 wrote: »

The Armstrong should not have to play second fiddle to the 4NCL . If dates clash then players must choose which one they want to play in, it is disrespectful to the Armstrong to expect postponements just to facilitate the 4NCL.

Also worth noting that in the case of the Gonzaga B team, they played yesterday too, and guess what, their board one player was not playing. Why? Because he was playing also in the 4 NCL, but just for another team.

There is nothing wrong with that as the B team is safe enough and they are not in contention so they just done without their top player, as they have done previously. All right and proper, nothing to be critical of.

So that is why it is not right to just be critical of Gonzaga by club name. Clearly one team does things properly and that should be pointed out, while in the case of the other team, something wrong went down for this match, and the controller should not be facilitating or encouraging this for any of the Armstrong teams, to the detriment of the Armstrong Cup.

As you suggest "If dates clash then players must choose which one they want to play in" in the case of Gonzaga B they deserve credit, but in the case of Gonzaga A or Balbriggan, well, not so much. Again, playing IN ADVANCE of fixtures seems fine and fair.

Rathminor

Elm Mount 3.5 Rathmines 3.5
1 board still to be played.

KnightFromHell

Blanchardstown 3.5 - 4.5 Ballinasloe

checknraise

Anchor has made lots of sensible points in the thread and its hard to disagree with anything he has written.

The 4ncl should not be prioritised over the Armstrong but I do believe the Armstrong should try to avoid fixtures clashes in the future. All of Irelands best players have played in the 4ncl over the years and it should be encouraged as they get opportunities to play much stronger opposition compared to what they would in Ireland . In the last few years there have been players from Gonzaga, Elm Mount, Balbriggan, Trinity, Bray, Dublin and Kilkenny. Thats nearly every club in the Armstrong. With the juniors coming through from Rathmines and St Benildus I imagine they will be added to the list in the next couple of years.

February is the most congested time of year for fixtures as clubs are having to fit in 3 league matches plus Bunratty. On the Balbriggan/Kilkenny match I imagine it wouldn't have been possible to play in advance. Rating lists are now published monthly so its important to play and rate in the month which I am sure will be the case. The Balbriggan players are Irelands most promising players and just want to play chess. I don't think its fair to bring them or Balbriggan club into the matter.

cdeb

Just a note that I've deleted posts relating to personal info on one (effectively named) individual. I appreciate no malice or anything was intended, but I'm not sure a public forum is the place for such specific discussion about another individual