Armstrong Cup 2017/2018

cdeb

I agree that prioritising the Heidenfeld is what caused this.

But when you differed when we spoke on Wednesday, you misquoted the rule.

The rule in full is -

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

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

So the game v Kilkenny is easy to adjudicate - Eoghan was an illegal player, and lost. The 1-0 can't be reversed, and the -1 was correctly applied.

Their next game was v St Benildus B. In that game, Eoghan didn't play, but Gordon subbed up for the fourth time. At that stage, he was no longer playing for a team in a lower division.

The next one was v Bray/Greystones, when both players played. But now Eoghan is no longer an illegal player, so no penalty should apply. But the LCU have deducted Eoghan's win and also applied -1 - the correct penalty if Gordon was still a Heidenfeld player, but he wasn't. Ditto for the games v Dublin and Dún Laoghaire.

Possibly the confusion arises from the sentence "Breaches of this rule will result in the player being declared an illegal player on that team" - but a general reading of the rules makes it clear that there is no intention to freeze the illegal player out of the leagues for the season. We can see this in rule 6.8 for example, where a player who breaks the 150 point rule is an "illegal player" - but they can still play the next game. Similarly, rule 6.3 mentions illegal players, and it's clear that the illegality is to be considered purely for the duration of the one game in question. So "illegal player" in rule 6.7 - the rule in question here - must mean that a player is illegal for one game only, and not, de facto, for subsequent games.

I'm not sure what the counter argument is. It seems quite clear to me that the rule has been incorrectly applied.

macelligott

By all means propose an amendment to the rules at the AGM if you think they lack clarity. You have your interpretation which I don’t believe is watertight. Seems to me the LCU applied the rules exactly as they are worded.

cdeb

I don't think the rules lack clarity. I believe I've shown clearly why the punishment applied is incorrect.

At present there is no counter argument though. Your argument on Wednesday was that Eoghan couldn't continue playing Armstrong so long as a higher-rated player was "declared" on a lower team - and you were specific about the word declared. But that word appears nowhere in the rule.

So again - what is the argument for the current penalty?

macelligott

CDEB Rule 6.7 has no mechanism for “legalising” an illegal player. So Casey became illegal when he played his 4th game in the Armstrong. And remained illegal thereafter. Therefore on the exact reading of the rule the points were correctly deducted.

cdeb

It does have a basis for legalising an illegal player. I've already quoted it.

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.

Once there was no longer a player 150 points higher rated on a lower team, the player was quite clearly no longer an illegal player.

macelligott

Rathmines 1-7 Gonzaga. Seems Gonzaga strengthened their team further for this match (2 new players) and had Killian Delaney on board 8

Tim Harding

macelligott wrote: »

CDEB Rule 6.7 has no mechanism for “legalising” an illegal player. So Casey became illegal when he played his 4th game in the Armstrong. And remained illegal thereafter. Therefore on the exact reading of the rule the points were correctly deducted.

I think two Senior Counsels would have fun arguing this before the Supreme Court.
In a top level case, the judges will not necessarily go by the literal meaning of the words as you interpret them. They will want to know what was the intention of the legislators when drafting the rule.
What abuse was intended to be eliminated when introducing the rule? It's rather unclear and complicated to my non-legal mind and I don't know what was the ancient case that caused it to be included in the league rules.
Maybe you can explain for the benefit of readers who may think the rule is rather silly and the punishment for infringement is excessive.

zeitnot

If asked "is X playing for Y in the Heidenfeld this season?", personally I'd say "yes" if the records showed he had played any games. cdeb's interpretation seems to be something along the lines of "will X play for Y some time in the future?". Not so obvious. And certainly not "quite clear"!

sodacat11

macelligott wrote: »

Rathmines 1-7 Gonzaga. Seems Gonzaga strengthened their team further for this match (2 new players) and had Killian Delaney on board 8

Yes Gonzaga brought in two foreign players who hadn't played for them before this season (if ever). Cdeb mentioned "shenanigans" in this season's Armstrong and that is exactly what this is. Gonzaga players seem to have a win at all cost attitude that has on at least one occasion stepped beyond the rules (i refer to "toiletgate").
I know all the present Gonzaga team personally and individually they are all very decent people and very honest sportsmen so it surprises me that as a group they are happy to go outside the spirit of club chess by doing things like bringing in the two players they did yesterday while one of their other 2100 rated regular players was actually in the room watching the games. It is not fair on the other Armstrong title contenders or indeed to Rathmines who are in a relegation battle that Gonzaga could be so mercenary and unethical. They may argue that they didn't break any rules and if that is the case then the rules need to be changed. Perhaps all league players should be permanent residents in the country? I hope that Elm Mount or Dublin go on to win the Armstrong this season because if Gonzaga do it will be a very tarnished victory. No doubt for their final match they will import 3 GMs and 2 I.Ms.

cdeb

zeitnot wrote: »

If asked "is X playing for Y in the Heidenfeld this season?", personally I'd say "yes" if the records showed he had played any games. cdeb's interpretation seems to be something along the lines of "will X play for Y some time in the future?". Not so obvious. And certainly not "quite clear"!

But the logical conclusion of this is that the players would not have been allowed to sub up in the opposite order either (i.e. Gordon first, and then Eoghan). This can't make sense. Of course a club can sub more than one player up from a lower team. They just have to do it in the correct oder.

In any event, the tenses you use are not in the rule, which says -

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

(The emphasis is mine.)

It doesn't say "if there has been another player...", which would then support your interpretation. It doesn't say "if it is possible that another player will...", which you suggest is my interpretation, but which isn't. It says "if there is another player".

In the Armstrong round 6 - the first key match; I don't dispute a penalty for round 4 - Eoghan and Gordon were both subbing up more than the stipulated three times. At the start of that match, is there another player 150 points higher than Eoghan playing for Gonzaga in a lower division? Answer - no. Gordon is playing in the Armstrong - rule 6.6.a explicitly prohibits him from playing for the Heidenfeld again. Therefore Eoghan is not an illegal player, and no penalty applies.

sodacat11 wrote: »

Yes Gonzaga brought in two foreign players who hadn't played for them before this season (if ever).

I presume these weren't Maze/Jessel? That is akin to Curragh alright, and Curragh certainly didn't break any rules. Maybe it is the case that a rule should be introduced as you (and Tim earlier in the thread) suggest, with an exception for IRL-registered players with FIDE living abroad. The LCU AGM is coming up in a couple of months.

I don't think it's remotely fair to bring "toiletgate" into this debate; it's irrelevant in this context.

zeitnot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cdeb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.