Armstrong Cup 2017/2018

zeitnot · 15-04-2018 04:52PM

If there "is" another player "playing for that club in a lower division". Assuming this is not intended to mean that the games are in progress at the same time, when indeed the other player "is" "playing for that club" (very literal, but nonsensical), then the "is ... playing" must refer to something else (games played before, games played after, games played before and after, games played before or after, player declared, perhaps others). Therefore it doesn't really solve the problem to say that the rules could have been worded differently for any specific one of the meanings above.
Under your interpretation, any higher rated player who plays a single later game in any lower division would retroactively invalidate all games beyond the first three played by each substitute in each higher division, and impose significant penalties as well. That doesn't seem right.
Your account of the situation in Armstrong round 6 assumes that "is playing" means something like "has played games in a lower division, and is not prohibited from playing further games in that division under any other rules".
To me, that's a lot to read into a very brief phrase. The first meaning above (games played before) seems the most natural fit from the list. A player "is" "playing" in a lower division if he has played any games in that division so far that season.

undisputed · 15-04-2018 05:44PM

cdeb wrote: »

The word "declared" isn't in there at all.

Does that mean declarations don't matter at all? Perhaps next season all eight Armstrong Benildus players can play in Heidenfeld three first games, get three 8:0 results (while playing in Armstrong at the same time) and it would be still legal? Even if it would be legal, it doesn't seem right.

In my opinion, Gordon Freeman shouldn't be declared on Heidenfeld, shouldn't play two games in Heidenfeld and everything would be perfect.

cdeb · 15-04-2018 05:46PM

zeitnot wrote: »

A player "is" "playing" in a lower division if he has played any games in that division so far that season.

But how do you get around the implication that this means the two players could not have subbed up in the reverse order to which they did? That doesn't seem right.

In addition, it cannot be in the spirit of the rules that a player would be frozen out of the leagues irredeemably. In fact, this situation happened to me a few years back when I subbed up too many times in error. I had to ring Peter Scott looking for a dispensation to drop back to my original team (the O'Hanlon I think; I had subbed twice for the Ennis and then a third time for the Armstrong, and was stuck on the Armstrong as a result due to the 150 point rule). The dispensation was granted in light of a genuine error with no intent to create an advantage, but it was in the course of the discussion pointed out that a strict interpretation of the rules was that all players more than 150 points above me should really be deemed on the Armstrong for me to continue playing games. That's not what's happened here - so the rule is being applied inconsistently.

zeitnot wrote: »

Under your interpretation, any higher rated player who plays a single later game in any lower division would retroactively invalidate all games beyond the first three played by each substitute in each higher division, and impose significant penalties as well. That doesn't seem right.

I'm not sure if I understand your point here. Is it this a case where, say, Sam Collins subs down to the Heidenfeld? (But that doesn't count, because Sam would then be an illegal player, not a Heidenfeld player) Or is it that if Gonzaga got a new 2000-rated player on the Heidenfeld, that the sub appearances by their 1600s would be invalid? But that's not the case either, because the issue here is about moving up a team, not subbing per se. There is no 150-point rule around subbing itself; it's moving up a team (and effectively being on a higher board) that's the issue.

zeitnot wrote: »

Your account of the situation in Armstrong round 6 assumes that "is playing" means something like "has played games in a lower division, and is not prohibited from playing further games in that division under any other rules".
To me, that's a lot to read into a very brief phrase. The first meaning above (games played before) seems the most natural fit from the list.

I disagree. The rules clearly indicate which team a player is on at any given time. They are either on the team they were declared on at the start of the season (rule 6.4), or a higher team according to his sub appearances (rule 6.6). This is all black and white, and fits in quite neatly with the "if" clause in rule 6.7. This also closes off the other interpretation you mention -

zeitnot wrote: »

the "is ... playing" must refer to something else (games played before, games played after, games played before and after, games played before or after, player declared, perhaps others). Therefore it doesn't really solve the problem to say that the rules could have been worded differently for any specific one of the meanings above.

The point I've been making - and which you haven't considered, outside of the "other" catch-all - is that "is playing" refers to the team on which the player is considered to be. The rules make it quite clear that a player can only be considered to be on one team. They start off declared on a team. If they sub for a higher team, they are still considered to be on their originally declared team. If they sub more than three times, they move up to the team their fourth sub appearance was for. No other alternatives are available.

So if we can clearly determine what team a player is playing on, we can easily determine if there is a higher-rated player on a lower team. In the case of round 6, the rules clearly consider Gordon to be on the Armstrong, and so there was no player 150+ points higher rated than Eoghan on a lower team. Therefore, no penalty applies.

macelligott · 15-04-2018 05:48PM

undisputed wrote: »

Does that mean declarations don't matter at all? Perhaps next season all eight Armstrong Benildus players can play in Heidenfeld three first games, get three 8:0 results (while playing in Armstrong at the same time) and it would be still legal? Even if it would be legal, it doesn't seem right.
:pac::cool:

cdeb · 15-04-2018 05:51PM

undisputed wrote: »

Does that mean declarations don't matter at all? Perhaps next season all eight Armstrong Benildus players can play in Heidenfeld three first games, get three 8:0 results (while playing in Armstrong at the same time) and it would be still legal? Even if it would be legal, it doesn't seem right.

Of course team declarations matter. Rule 6.4 says you must declare an Armstrong panel of 8 players. So Benildus cannot start our Heidenfeld season next year with our 8 Armstrong players.

But that has nothing to do with the point I was making, which is that the rule does not state "A player who has substituted three times for a team cannot play any further games for that team during that season if there is another player rated 150 points or more above him declared for that club in a lower division". This had been the point argued at our game on Wednesday.

Incidentally, part of the issue here is that Gonzaga declared an Armstrong squad of 8 including Maze and Jessel, who have yet to play at all this season. But this also has precedent - there was a proposal at an AGM about ten years ago that players must play at least once if they are declared on a team. This was in response to Benildus declaring a squad of 8, one of whom subsequently didn't play any games for various reasons, and we relied on subs throughout the season rather than bringing a player up from a lower team. The player in question had played in previous seasons, was contacted for each game in turn in the season in question but was always unavailable, and then after Christmas said he was pulling out of the squad altogether.

The motion to legislate for this was defeated at the AGM, as it was agreed that teams should declare squads in good faith, as it was agreed we had done. So while Gonzaga may have been pulling a fast one in their desire to get their Heidenfeld promoted, declaring Maze and Jessel but never playing them is not a breach of the league rules.

undisputed wrote: »

In my opinion, Gordon Freeman shouldn't be declared on Heidenfeld, shouldn't play two games in Heidenfeld and everything would be perfect.

It would have made things more straightforward, for sure.

But it has nothing to do with the matter at hand, which is whether Eoghan was eligible to play rounds 6, 7 and 8.

undisputed · 15-04-2018 06:11PM

Hypothetically.

Next season St Benildus declares Carlsen, Caruana etc for Armstrong
Current St Benildus 1 are all declared for Heidenfeld. And they play first 3 games in Heidenfeld, while at the same time subbing carlsens and caruanas in Armstrong. Then they stop playing for Heidenfeld and stay in Armstrong.

Would that be legal?

cdeb · 15-04-2018 06:15PM

Under the current rules, yes.

Obviously questions would be raised as to whether Caruana, Carlsen, et al would actually play for Benildus! But precedent says this sort of thing is allowed.

Such an extreme case as you note would be exceptionally bad form of course, but as seen with Curragh earlier this season, bad form and breaking the rules are two very different things.

undisputed · 15-04-2018 06:26PM

Carlsens and caruanas you can replace with 2200-2300 players of course. Who still wouldn't play for Benildus. But declaring them for Armstrong would allow real Benildus players play for Heidenfeld. At least for the first 3 rounds. And if that doesn't break the rules, according to you, then that is just very sad.

cdeb · 15-04-2018 06:32PM

undisputed wrote: »

Carlsens and caruanas you can replace with 2200-2300 players of course.

Yep, understand that alright. Still legal.

undisputed wrote: »

And if that doesn't break the rules, according to you, then that is just very sad.

Not according to me. It's a fact with precedent behind it.

Is it sad? The rules assume that clubs act in good faith, and so don't do things such as you note above. That's much better than legislating for every possible rule evasion, I think.

Tim Harding · 15-04-2018 06:53PM

Who were the two overseas 2200+ players on yesterday's Armstrong team for Gonzaga who had not previously played?
Did either Maze and Jessel play?
Perhaps one was Icelandic FM Pal Thorarinsson who has been their top board for every round in the 4NCL this year. If so, playing him in this match cannot be really objected to, but somebody who had never played for them previously would be, while within the rules, a bit objectionable.

I was at Gonzaga yesterday for the Arbiter Seminar but did not go into the playing room at any stage. Carl Jackson was indeed spectating but when he came in our room about 4pm he still had his coat on, and said the reason he wasn't in the match was that he had had a meeting in the morning.

Sodacat can only have been joking in his posting today at 1041: "No doubt for their final match they will import 3 GMs and 2 I.Ms." He well knows that no team can play in the last round somebody who has not played in at least one earlier round. (That should perhaps be increased to 2 or 3 when we are amending the rules?)

I am still awaiting an answer to my query about the reasoning for the rule in question and how it came about.

It seems from this discussion that we need a different kind of rule to prevent abuses. The one we have is unclearly worded, very hard to interpret and is not having the desired effect to level the playing field.

L1m1tless · 15-04-2018 06:58PM

If clubs come together maybe we can get a discount on the Ryanair flights for next season.

cdeb · 15-04-2018 07:11PM

Tim Harding wrote: »

I am still awaiting an answer to my query about the reasoning for the rule in question and how it came about.

I don't imagine any particular abuse gave rise to the rule. It's just an extension of the normal 150 point rule, where a player (a) can't play on a higher board than someone 150 points higher rated (rule 6.8.a) and (b) can't play on a higher team than someone 150 points higher rated (rule 6.8.c). Really the purpose of rule 6.7 is just to stipulate the punishment to be applied in the case of a breach of the 150-point rule by means of subbing up permanently ahead of another player.

The 150-point rule has I think been there as long as I've been playing and makes perfect sense to avoid excessive tactical board swaps. The main idea behind the rule should be that Team A's top player plays Team B's top player, and so on down the line, with the overall effect that a fair team result is achieved. The 150-point rule allows for some tactical switches based on form, under-rated juniors, making it difficult to prep for opponents, and just plain efficient targetting of points.

Tim Harding wrote: »

It seems from this discussion that we need a different kind of rule to prevent abuses. The one we have is unclearly worded, very hard to interpret and is not having the desired effect to level the playing field.

I don't agree with any of that. I think it's quite clear.

macelligott · 15-04-2018 07:23PM

A point of information: Maze 2595 and Jessel 2320 were both declared on the Gonzaga Armstrong team at the beginning of the season. Thus, allowing Gordon Freeman to be declared and play, initially, in Division 2. Unless Maze or Jessel played for Gonzaga yesterday, they will be ineligible to play in the last round as they will not have previously played this season.

bduffy · 15-04-2018 08:34PM

macelligott wrote: »

A point of information: Maze 2595 and Jessel 2320 were both declared on the Gonzaga Armstrong team at the beginning of the season. Thus, allowing Gordon Freeman to be declared and play, initially, in Division 2. Unless Maze or Jessel played for Gonzaga yesterday, they will be ineligible to play in the last round as they will not have previously played this season.

True, this was pointed out in February and that Maze usually played only one game per year....mostly it was Balbriggan!
When all is said and done (assuming there are still rows after the final round), one possible outcome is a once off match to decide the league.
The caveat being that only the most active players on each team play, so Maze or Jessel couldn't tilt the odds in Gonzaga's favour.

Ciaran · 15-04-2018 08:55PM

undisputed wrote: »

Carlsens and caruanas you can replace with 2200-2300 players of course. Who still wouldn't play for Benildus. But declaring them for Armstrong would allow real Benildus players play for Heidenfeld. At least for the first 3 rounds. And if that doesn't break the rules, according to you, then that is just very sad.

It would be sad if it happened, not least for the 8 Heidenfeld players who would be left without a game for three rounds. I don't think any club would be as cynical as to do that but if anyone is worried about such a situation they can propose a rule to combat it at the AGM.

cdeb wrote: »

I don't agree with any of that. I think it's quite clear.

The length of this discussion would indicate otherwise.

A 5.5 point penalty and a player effectively being banned from playing in the leagues for the rest of the year seems grossly excessive where the rule breaking (as far as I can see) involved a player playing one game the he shouldn't. Assuming that this is a widely held view, a rewording of the rule would be wise.

Incidentally, rules 6.8 and 6.9 have wording that is close to identical to 6.7.

6.7 A player who has substituted three times for a team cannot play any further games for that team during that season if there is another player rated 150 points or more above him playing for that club in a lower division. Breaches of this rule will result in the player being declared an illegal player on that team. Teams offending against this rule will have any points won by the illegal player(s) deducted and awarded to their opponents and will receive a -1 on that board.

6.8 a) Any player placed below a team member whose rating is 150 points or more lower, is to be deemed an illegal player.

6.9 A team offending against rule 6.8 will have any points won by the illegal player(s) deducted and awarded to the opposing team.

Does anyone think that breaking the 150-point rule as in rule 6.8 should result in any future games played by the "illegal players" in that situation being declared as losses?

zeitnot · 15-04-2018 09:40PM

cdeb;106734735
The point I've been making - and which you haven't considered, outside of the "other" catch-all - is that "is playing" refers to the team on which the player is considered to be. [1] The rules make it quite clear that a player can only be considered to be on one team. [2] They start off declared on a team. If they sub for a higher team, they are still considered to be on their originally declared team. [3] If they sub more than three times, they move up to the team their fourth sub appearance was for. [4] No other alternatives are available. [5]

[1] Reference, please? I can't find the term "is considered" anywhere in the rules.

[2] Where do the rules make this clear? If "is considered" means "is playing for", as you suggest earlier, then this seems clearly incorrect. X is declared for the BEA team; after two rounds he has played 2 games as a substitute in each of the Heidenfeld, Ennis, and O'Hanlon, but no games in the BEA. He "is playing" for the Heidenfeld, Ennis, and O'Hanlon teams, but is not "playing" for the BEA team.

[3] You're mixing together multiple different terms: "is playing for", "declared", "is considered", and "on". Maze and Jessel are "declared" on Gonzaga's Armstrong team, but they have not "played for" that team this season. It's possible (indeed common) for players to play for a team they're not declared for (as a substitute) and to be declared for a team they play no games for (Maze, Jessel, Casey, others). Rule 6.7 by its own terms is exclusively concerned with "is playing for", so declarations don't enter into it.

[4] Now we have another new term, in which a player can "move up" to another team. The word "move" appears 34 times in the rules, but none of them define what it means for a player to "move up" to another team. Does it mean that the player is now "declared for" the higher team? (Or "is considered" to be on the higher team, or is "on" the higher team?)

[5] Your own scenario isn't possible either. The first sentence of 6.6 says "No player declared for a higher division team may play for a lower division team in that season". So a player who plays one game in a declared lower division, then plays 4 games as a substitute in a higher division, can't be "declared" in the higher division or 6.6 is violated.

It seems that throughout what you write, you're starting from the conclusion, which is how you assume it all has to work, and then reading into the written rules whatever is necessary to make that work, and exclude all other possibilities.

Finally, I don't follow your "ordering" objection at all. First, players can play as substitutes up to three times without triggering these rules at all, so as long as everyone stays within that, order doesn't matter. Once one or more players plays four games as a substitute, consequences indeed start flowing. But they do in your view as well, since your view of when E.C.'s games are illegal depends on when G.F. played his fourth game as a substitute. (And in either your view or my view, so what?)

cdeb · 15-04-2018 10:28PM

I think the level of semantics and/or wilful misapprehension in that post makes it difficult to reply fully to tbh. A cursory read of the rules would answer many of the queries you raise.

zeitnot wrote:

[1] Reference, please? I can't find the term "is considered" anywhere in the rules.

The exact phrase doesn't have to be in the rules for the point to be correct. The great thing about words is that they are not rigid, but can be used to explain things too, like the implications of a rule. I have covered my reasoning for this point earlier in the thread.

zeitnot wrote:

[2]X is declared for the BEA team; after two rounds he has played 2 games as a substitute in each of the Heidenfeld, Ennis, and O'Hanlon, but no games in the BEA. He "is playing" for the Heidenfeld, Ennis, and O'Hanlon teams, but is not "playing" for the BEA team.

This is clearly covered by rules 6.4 (in which the player is declared on the BEA) and rule 6.6 (in which the player is permitted to substitute for a higher team). In the example you quote, the player is on the BEA. That this is so is proven by the fact that their sub appearances for the Heidenfeld, Ennis and O'Hanlon are fine even if they are 150 points lower-rated than any player on the BEA squad (however, they cannot make any further appearances for these teams if there is a player 150 points higher rated for them on the BEA).

Your point 3 has no relevance to anything, from what I can see.

zeitnot wrote:

[4]Now we have another new term, in which a player can "move up" to another team. The word "move" appears 34 times in the rules, but none of them define what it means for a player to "move up" to another team. Does it mean that the player is now "declared for" the higher team? (Or "is considered" to be on the higher team, or is "on" the higher team?)

This is just getting to daft levels of semantics to be honest. In this case, rule 6.6 says that -

"Where a player has played more than three games in a higher division/divisions as a substitute, he (subject to rule 6.7)
a) May not play again that season in a lower division, and
b) Where he has played as a substitute for more than one team in higher divisions, he may only play again for one such team and this team shall be the one for which he plays as a substitute for a fourth time.

So after four sub appearances, they must leave the team they were declared on (the BEA, for example) and move up to a higher team, and the rule defines exactly which team they are now considered to be part of. That the exact phrase "move up" doesn't appear in the rule doesn't remotely invalidate my point.

zeitnot wrote:

[5] Your own scenario isn't possible either. The first sentence of 6.6 says "No player declared for a higher division team may play for a lower division team in that season". So a player who plays one game in a declared lower division, then plays 4 games as a substitute in a higher division, can't be "declared" in the higher division or 6.6 is violated.

I never said that a player would be "declared" (your inverted commas, indicating a direct quote, which I never used) on a higher team by virtue of playing four times as a sub. But the rule quoted above clearly indicates that they must, as a result of subbing up four times, now be considered part of the higher team. This is central to the Gonzaga issue - from his fourth sub appearance, Gordon was part of the Armstrong, and therefore there was no player 150 points higher-rated than Eoghan on a lower team.

zeitnot wrote:

It seems that throughout what you write, you're starting from the conclusion, which is how you assume it all has to work, and then reading into the written rules whatever is necessary to make that work, and exclude all other possibilities

Not at all. I have read the rules and come to a conclusion, the reasons for which I have outlined in the thread. I have argued against other views with reference to the rules. So this is in fact the opposite of what you're suggesting.

Finally, I don't follow your "ordering" objection at all.

The point is very simple. Do you think that, had Gordon instead of Eoghan played round 4 against Kilkenny, Gonzaga should have had a points deduction applied?

I'm happy to debate this matter, but I will point out that I won't be replying to posts of that daft a nature again.

Tim Harding · 15-04-2018 10:41PM

I think we should all let this drop now, but I hope also that when the LCU makes its final decision (hopefully in the next few days) that they make their reasoning explicit. So cdeb should summarise his arguments in a deposition to their committee if he feels strongly enough. My impression yesterday is that Gonzaga are resigned to not getting their points back.

In the meantime, note that if Curragh recall their Three Amigos and hammer Dun Laoghaire then they might yet overhaul Rathmines who have a tougher last round match.

macelligott · 15-04-2018 11:53PM

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. It must have clear to everyone that neither Maze & Jessel were likely to play many (if any) games as they both live in France. If Gonzaga wished to declare Maze and Jessel they should have declared more players on their Armstrong team. The main purpose of the exercise was obviously to support their Heidenfeld team in its bid to be promoted.

zeitnot · 15-04-2018 11:57PM

We're going around in circles. What I'm trying to convey is that your interpretation is far from the only one. In my opinion, it's not at all the most natural one. You seem to assume that it is the best, indeed the only, interpretation, and have thrown around phrases such as "quite clear", "black and white", "simple", and so on, while other opinions are now "daft". It's not the official interpretation, mind you, since the penalty has been applied: so everyone else has it wrong, is that it? Well, believe what you like.

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? But I think that given your attitude, there's little point in debating it.

cdeb · 16-04-2018 07:45AM

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)?

checknraise · 16-04-2018 10:06AM

To my mind there are 2 pieces to consider has the correct penalty been applied and does the controller have any responsibility to notify a team once a penalty has occurred.

There is no debate that Gonzaga broke the rule but it was not done deliberately and I am in agreement with CDEB that the penalty is excessive and the rules have not been followed. I think the Gonzaga - Bray game highlights how farcical the punishment is - http://www.chessleague.net/chessorg/leinster/match.php?org=1&lid=93&fid=5289. Bray defaulted a game but receive no punishment whereas Gonzaga receive a -1 for Casey playing.

Surely the controller has a responsibility to notify a club of any rule break ASAP especially where they are going to be accumulating penalties. It should not be raised after round 9. I know Elm Mount's plan was for Gonzaga to accumulate as many penalties as possible before they brought it to the controller's attention this was confirmed by two of their younger teammates.

pdemp · 16-04-2018 10:33AM

macelligott wrote: »

A point of information: Maze 2595 and Jessel 2320 were both declared on the Gonzaga Armstrong team at the beginning of the season. Thus, allowing Gordon Freeman to be declared and play, initially, in Division 2. Unless Maze or Jessel played for Gonzaga yesterday, they will be ineligible to play in the last round as they will not have previously played this season.

Irony here is Gordon was declared for the Armstrong. It was the first team he played for this season, before he played or was declared for the Heidenfeld [checked this with controller before Gonzaga played first Heidenfeld match and told Heidenfeld captain the same, but nothing was done about it], so by rule 6.5 Gordon is and always has been an Armstrong player who was illegally subbed down to the Heidenfeld.

undisputed · 16-04-2018 11:44AM

checknraise wrote: »

I think the Gonzaga - Bray game highlights how farcical the punishment is - http://www.chessleague.net/chessorg/leinster/match.php?org=1&lid=93&fid=5289. Bray defaulted a game but receive no punishment whereas Gonzaga receive a -1 for Casey playing.

.

Bray didnt default a game. They simply didnt have board 8 and gave a walkover. There is never -1 for this

checknraise · 16-04-2018 12:51PM

Ahh I see, so there should be a bigger punishment for the league controller's interpretation of the rule Gonzaga broke versus not having a player. That is just silly and anyone can see that.
What about the responsibility of the league controller to notify a club of a rule break as early as possible?

bduffy · 16-04-2018 01:25PM

pdemp wrote: »

Irony here is Gordon was declared for the Armstrong. It was the first team he played for this season, before he played or was declared for the Heidenfeld [checked this with controller before Gonzaga played first Heidenfeld match and told Heidenfeld captain the same, but nothing was done about it], so by rule 6.5 Gordon is and always has been an Armstrong player who was illegally subbed down to the Heidenfeld.

This was pointed out before ....

bduffy wrote: »

In particular you only have to look at Gonzaga having GF playing two Board 1 games in the Heidenfeld in October, while having played Board 2 against the Curragh Armstrong in September. It's also a problem if you're being denied promotion......

...so they knew the risk. It'll probably all come down to a play off to decide it so everyone can wash their hands of it.

cdeb · 16-04-2018 01:42PM

That's technically not quite the same thing.

You can be declared on the Heidenfeld but play your first game of the season (as a sub) for the Armstrong.

If he was declared on no team at the start of the season - typically if no team declaration at all is made - then his first appearance determines his team.

(The Bray example is a walkover, not a default, so no penalty applies. It would have been a default if Bray had named a player on board 8)

undisputed · 16-04-2018 02:04PM

checknraise wrote: »

Ahh I see, so there should be a bigger punishment for the league controller's interpretation of the rule Gonzaga broke versus not having a player. That is just silly and anyone can see that.
What about the responsibility of the league controller to notify a club of a rule break as early as possible?

I think we are all waiting here for league controller to turn up and explain his desicion and bring some clarity into this. As at the moment there are just many different opinions floating around and no substance.

ComDubh · 16-04-2018 02:21PM

Part of this discussion has cast Gonzaga's "importing" of players in a negative light. I think they're to be applauded for bringing in players from abroad, strengthening the Armstrong and giving us the opportunity to play a GM in a FIDE-rated game on wet night in Ranelagh. Bravo! Gonzaga have been chasing strong players for years, but it seems no other club is interested in competing with them. When Stephen Jessel won the Irish a few years ago, it was Gonzaga who recruited him. Did any other Armstrong team make an offer? Fair enough if not, but then don't go whinging on about Gonzaga's efforts.

Gonzaga may have broken the league rules, I didn't follow the discussion in detail, but that's another matter.

checknraise · 16-04-2018 04:37PM

I would also add that everyone who plays for Gonzaga is a friend and nobody is paid to play. Pall who played on Saturday is a regular in our 4ncl team. Pall would not have been playing if one of our players was not be deemed an illegal player.

Armstrong Cup 2017/2018

Comments