Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ennis Shield 2017/2018

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    L1m1tless
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 2,165 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1m1tless


    He got a provisional rating of 19xx from the Drogheda Congress in the Summer but was registered using his FIDE rating of 1730. Makes a big difference to the bottom of the table too.


  • Options
    #33
    pdemp
    Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭pdemp


    L1m1tless wrote: »
    He got a provisional rating of 19xx from the Drogheda Congress in the Summer but was registered using his FIDE rating of 1730. Makes a big difference to the bottom of the table too.

    I think this is where the ICU only publishing paid up members is an issue. The league rule 6.8 a) 1. states "For players who are registered with the ICU, the latest ICU rating published prior to the commencement of the current season." On Sept 16 (the start of the leagues) the published list was what is now labelled the 2017 July list [ I think ]. Seems a bit unfair on Drogheda, rather than careless, given that the player had no published ICU rating, and especially when you see his current ICU is close to his FIDE, so from estimating his strength their captain did a good job.
    Rathminor wrote: »
    ...
    This season there also appears to be a breach in the Armstrong and an incidence twice with the same player in the Heidenfeld.
    I think the Heidenfeld issue is more a case that the players final September rating was substantially higher than the original declared rating, so all should be in order (is there a facilty to true up declared ratings??).
    ...
    This is a case of the leagues controller telling the player he could use the September rating, so it would be very unfair to punish Elm Mount in this case [ even if it isn't the correct rating according to the rules ].

    The ICU should probably move to naming the list by date of publication, rather than just year/month, and include at least unpaid new members & members who have paid the previous season rather than just current paid up members. They are now published after the end of the month, so the old idea of a Jan/May/September rating is kinda gone [and end of month is confusing given that FIDE is start of month ]


  • Options
    #34
    Retd.LoyolaCpt
    Registered Users Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Retd.LoyolaCpt


    "members who have paid the previous season" have their rating published up until December 31st of the following season - that should be long enough to figure out a rating in September.


  • Options
    #35
    pdemp
    Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭pdemp


    Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »
    "members who have paid the previous season" have their rating published up until December 31st of the following season - that should be long enough to figure out a rating in September.

    That's good to know, and is enough for most ... but are new members like the Drogheda situation?


  • Options
    #36
    Retd.LoyolaCpt
    Registered Users Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Retd.LoyolaCpt


    How can you rate a new member when we don't know if they want to be a member or not in advance? If they have games played, then they should have paid their ICU fees in advance of those games which they are required to (ie the onus is on them or their club, not the volunteers running the ICU).

    The 150 rule doesn't count for anyone under 1200 or 1300 - I can't remember which. Ratings look first to ICU and then to FIDE if they have no ICU.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    pdemp
    Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭pdemp


    Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »
    How can you rate a new member when we don't know if they want to be a member or not in advance? If they have games played, then they should have paid their ICU fees in advance of those games which they are required to (ie the onus is on them or their club, not the volunteers running the ICU).
    ...
    Good point. So if the player only paid in Sept then they wouldn't have an ICU rating before then.
    Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »
    Ratings look first to ICU and then to FIDE if they have no ICU.
    And this is what they seemed to have done.


  • Options
    #38
    pdemp
    Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭pdemp


    Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »
    The 150 rule doesn't count for anyone under 1200 or 1300 - I can't remember which. Ratings look first to ICU and then to FIDE if they have no ICU.
    It's 1200. Anyone below that can play as if they are 1200 (i.e. above someone rated 1349)


  • Options
    #39
    Retd.LoyolaCpt
    Registered Users Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Retd.LoyolaCpt


    Correct.

    Discussed the timing of ICU rating lists with the rating officer - probably not a bad idea to add in a specific date although for future reference, it will always mean the end of that month


  • Options
    #40
    pdemp
    Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭pdemp


    Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »
    Correct.
    It's based on that that I feel Drogheda were hard done by [i.e no published ICU rating in Sept, therefore the used FIDE]. Whether they can be bothered with an appeal is up to them. Although if Curragh get relegated by 1 point they could have reason to appeal too, as they are the only ones not to benefit.
    Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »
    Discussed the timing of ICU rating lists with the rating officer - probably not a bad idea to add in a specific date although for future reference, it will always mean the end of that month

    Thanks. I've understood that [based on observation], but sometimes the ratings are not published until the middle of the next month [ which is fine -- volunteers after all, the ICU is not like FIDE ], so maybe the actual date they are published on the website versus the date the ratings are done up to.


  • Options
    #41
    Retd.LoyolaCpt
    Registered Users Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Retd.LoyolaCpt


    "It's based on that that I feel Drogheda were hard done by [i.e no published ICU rating in Sept, therefore the used FIDE]. Whether they can be bothered with an appeal is up to them. Although if Curragh get relegated by 1 point they could have reason to appeal too, as they are the only ones not to benefit. "

    A case for the LCU to decide - I think their rules are pretty clear but given the allowance they gave to Elm Mount in the Heidenfeld, there certainly seems to be wiggle room when it comes to rating.

    "Thanks. I've understood that [based on observation], but sometimes the ratings are not published until the middle of the next month [ which is fine -- volunteers after all, the ICU is not like FIDE ], so maybe the actual date they are published on the website versus the date the ratings are done up to."

    Unlike with FIDE, the ICU rating lists backdate if files are delivered late - and they often are delivered to the ICU late. So its a little more complicated than a "publish" date. Like with FIDE, there is a "received", "not received" and "rated" list - it would be very rare that a file is received by the rating officer but not rated within 24 hours. There were two instances of this in the last few years - one where the rating officer was simply away, the other where the system had a glitch which took a few weeks to work out (there was a news item about that one).

    I know the rating officer and LCU work closely around August list time and I'd work closely with all involved to make sure the upcoming FIDE and ICU lists are as up to date as possible for February for International Selection. Apart from Internationals, all events tend to be well up to date by August 31st given the sparseness of Irish events over summer.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    Another issue to consider is whether the LCU should have left it so late to apply the penalty. I don't know is it the case that the player's rating was realised/recorded so late that's the issue, but if a penalty was applied after the first instance, Drogheda would have been saved 6 points.

    I'm loathe to overly criticise the LCU here because they do fantastic work running the leagues as smoothly as they do, but it's just a thought.


  • Options
    #43
    pdemp
    Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭pdemp


    Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »
    "It's based on that that I feel Drogheda were hard done by [i.e no published ICU rating in Sept, therefore the used FIDE]. Whether they can be bothered with an appeal is up to them. Although if Curragh get relegated by 1 point they could have reason to appeal too, as they are the only ones not to benefit. "

    A case for the LCU to decide - I think their rules are pretty clear but given the allowance they gave to Elm Mount in the Heidenfeld, there certainly seems to be wiggle room when it comes to rating.
    From me this is the issue. The LCU rules are clear, and Drogheda appeared to have obeyed them. There is no room for wiggle room in the rules, but I think there should be, provided there's transparency, or course. Both Elm Mount's 150 issue and Gonzaga's players declaration issue seem genuine mistakes/misreading of the rules, and so a controller judgement should be allowed, as was used in these issues, but it doesn't appear to be allowed for in the current league rules.
    Retd.LoyolaCpt wrote: »
    "Thanks. I've understood that [based on observation], but sometimes the ratings are not published until the middle of the next month [ which is fine -- volunteers after all, the ICU is not like FIDE ], so maybe the actual date they are published on the website versus the date the ratings are done up to."

    Unlike with FIDE, the ICU rating lists backdate if files are delivered late - and they often are delivered to the ICU late. So its a little more complicated than a "publish" date. Like with FIDE, there is a "received", "not received" and "rated" list - it would be very rare that a file is received by the rating officer but not rated within 24 hours. There were two instances of this in the last few years - one where the rating officer was simply away, the other where the system had a glitch which took a few weeks to work out (there was a news item about that one).
    ...
    But would the whole ICU original v corrected/official rating cover it, with the original able to have a proper published date.


    Sorry Ennis players I've definitely taken this off topic at this stage.


  • Options
    #44
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    Stuff on the Armstrong transgression moved to that thread.

    pdemp - don't think the posts on the Ennis points deduction are off topic at all. Any results can still come through around the discussion.


  • Options
    #45
    L1m1tless
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 2,165 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1m1tless


    Skerries V Rathmines, any results or was it rescheduled? Thanks


  • Options
    #46
    Rathminor
    Registered Users Posts: 290 ✭✭Rathminor


    L1m1tless wrote: »
    Skerries V Rathmines, any results or was it rescheduled? Thanks

    Skerries v Rathmines was postponed. The new date hasn’t been set yet


  • Options
    #47
    Rathminor
    Registered Users Posts: 290 ✭✭Rathminor


    Skerries 4 Rathmines 2


  • Options
    #48
    L1m1tless
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 2,165 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1m1tless


    Decent result considering the gap. Well done


  • Options
    #49
    L1m1tless
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 2,165 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1m1tless


    Curragh 1.5 Malahide 1.5 with 3 games to go


  • Options
    #50
    L1m1tless
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 2,165 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1m1tless


    Curragh 3 Malahide 3 Final Result


  • Options
    #51
    L1m1tless
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 2,165 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1m1tless


    Rathmines 1 Curragh 5

    Rathmines were very unlucky, Games were much closer than the scoreline suggests.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Vampslayer
    Registered Users Posts: 30 ✭Vampslayer


    Any other results from the weekend?


  • Options
    #53
    Inchmove
    Registered Users Posts: 1 ✭Inchmove


    Inchicore 4.5 Longford 1.5 Looks like 3 way fight at the bottom on last day


  • Options
    #54
    hotamatua
    Registered Users Posts: 49 ✭hotamatua


    Cavan 4-2 Skerries.A rare win for us gives us much needed points but the last day should be interesting with some of the relegation threatened teams playing those who are looking for the runners up spot.


  • Options
    #55
    bduffy
    Registered Users Posts: 405 ✭✭bduffy


    Drogheda finished on 30.5 with the penalties applied.....but the ratings on the LCU site don't match those on the ICU ratings site for Martynas Gudauskas which are much lower and in line with board order. Will the penalties be reversed before the last round on Sunday?


  • Options
    #56
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    Thought it was interesting that Drogheda kept playing the guy lower down even after their points deduction - see round 10 for example.

    But the LCU rating of 1929 is as per the Sept rating list, based on his performance in Drogheda last June.


  • Options
    #57
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    Also, any result from Enniscorthy v Inchicore? It's the only match outstanding


  • Options
    #58
    bduffy
    Registered Users Posts: 405 ✭✭bduffy


    cdeb wrote: »
    Thought it was interesting that Drogheda kept playing the guy lower down even after their points deduction - see round 10 for example.

    But the LCU rating of 1929 is as per the Sept rating list, based on his performance in Drogheda last June.

    But that rating dropped significantly over the year....so if you work by live ratings should the points and penalties be reversed?


  • Options
    #59
    hotamatua
    Registered Users Posts: 49 ✭hotamatua


    Regarding Inchicore v Enniscorthy,I believe the yellowbellies are 4-0 up with the remaining 2 to be played Saturday.


  • Options
    #60
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    bduffy wrote: »
    But that rating dropped significantly over the year....so if you work by live ratings should the points and penalties be reversed?
    No. The leagues never go by live ratings; always by the rating at the start of the season.

    Otherwise, it'd be an absolute nightmare trying to work out the 150 point rule (was a game played before or after Bunratty was rated? And was the game played before or after its scheduled date?) And a junior who gained a significant amount of points during the year could find himself forced to play on the next team up, which would mean dumping a player off that team as there's no provision for dropping down a team mid-season (and rightly so)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    pdemp
    Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭pdemp


    bduffy wrote: »
    But that rating dropped significantly over the year....so if you work by live ratings should the points and penalties be reversed?

    While live ratings can't be used, the player had no published rating at the start of the league, so maybe they are hoping to use the live rating as evidence the captain made a good call on playing strength, which is the captain's responsibility in the absence of a published rating.

    Not sure about O'Hanlon, but Armstrong, Heidenfeld, Ennis and BEA have all had bad/incorrect interpretations of the rule book this year, with impacts on league placing.
    While there are a few minor loopholes that allow such interpretations in some of the decisions [e.g. the rules don't explicitly say a player has to be declared on a lower team before being subbed up, but I'd imagine it is implied, as otherwise the existing rule makes no sense ], there are none I can see in this case [I was told the leagues have always used the September list after COD, but that's not what the rules say].


Advertisement