League Management Committee – Minutes – 2016–17
Go to minutes summary page
Minutes of the LMC meeting on Thursday 23rd March 2017
Held at “The Vale”
- The minutes of the meeting held on 22 July 2016, which have been on the NCA website since shortly after that were formally approved.
- Matters arising were to be covered in other agenda items.
- David Levens had been invited to discuss the decision to decline his appeal against penalty for defaulting board 3. He didn’t arrive, but the members present all agreed that nothing in his emails on the subject had changed their views. (NB. On arriving home I had an email from him advising he hadn’t received my lunchtime email until 7:44 pm and other comments.)
- Appeal from West Nottingham against the 2 point deduction and £20 fine for defaulting a match against Central 2. The fine was revoked but the points penalty stands.
- Appeal from University 1 against penalty for playing an ungraded player against Gambit 4 was rejected.
- Appeal from Gambit 2 against the previous LMC decision on the eligibility of B Dong will be dealt with by the Chairman as only two members were from clubs not involved.
- A list of rule changes proposed by Steve Burke were debated and various members seconded all but one of these. They will be circulated with the agenda and other proposals for the General Meeting to be held on 15 May.
- A further list of rule changes proposed by Drag Sudar and one by John Swain were also discussed, as were suggestions form Jack Litherland. The LMC did not decide to back any of these, though individual members may do.
- The LMC agreed its intended policy for next season’s League structure as :- All but the bottom division will, if possible, have the same number of teams.
- Meeting closed at 10:01 pm
NB. Further details of the above appeals and other LMC decisions made by email over the season are below.
LMC Decisions 2016-17 Season
- Newark appealed against the penalties for playing in the wrong order per rule C7, and also asked for a temporary grade to be amended. Both appeals were rejected. (6 Nov)
- Mansfield appealed against the penalties for defaulting a match due to extreme weather. This was accepted and both waived.
- Mansfield 2 withdrawn from the league having played 4 and defaulted 2 matches. LMC confirmed this meant their results should be removed from the league table under rule B5.
- LMC decided that in respect of a dispute in the Uni 2 v Cen 2 match:
- In respect of the match result, the four results of finished games will stand. The fifth game will be void for grading purposes
but Central will be awarded the game point as it was University responsibility to ensure time to finish the game. That means the
match result is 3-2 to University.
The incorrect building quoted in the handbook was apparently an administrative error in the production of the handbook, and although University should really have noticed that, it is not felt to be sufficient grounds to award the match against them once you had played the match.
- In the heat of the events, University were requesting not to play the return match at Central. However, hopefully relations between the clubs have settled somewhat since and the LMC decision is that the match should go ahead as scheduled. However, Central must ensure that Mr Gibson is not present.
- The LMC reserves its decision re any action in relation to Mr Gibson personally as he is currently not being selected by Central.
- In respect of the match result, the four results of finished games will stand. The fifth game will be void for grading purposes but Central will be awarded the game point as it was University responsibility to ensure time to finish the game. That means the match result is 3-2 to University.
- Agreed to allow Brian Oldham to play for Radcliffe & Bingham following the demise of Mansfield 2 team.
- The League Secretary asked the LMC to rule on the Record Secretary’s intent to penalise Ashfield for infringement of C7 by
Ashfield in the Division 1 match Ashfield 1 versus Gambit 2 played 15 February, 2017 where their player, Bao Dong, was played on
Board 1 not having a grade quoted in the August ECF Grading List.
The LMC members, Maurice Hill, Chris Holt, Nick London, Chris Budd and reserves Jack Litherland and Richard Myers, who considered this request, have come to a decision that Ashfield did not contravene Rule C7 in playing Bao Dong in their team on this occasion by not requesting a "shadow grade" for him in advance of the match.
Further, as his grade in the ECF January 2017 Grading List was above the other members of the Ashfield team then they did not play him out of position which was a prime reason for the bringing in of this rule. In this respect they acted within the spirit of the rule.
- West Nottingham 1 appealed against the penalty for defaulting above bottom board played against Central 1, as their board 3 got lost and didn’t get to the venue. The LMC acknowledged the points made by both sides, but the overriding point is that it is the responsibility of each team to get their players to the match. WN could have done more to ensure that Alex would get to to a venue that he was unfamiliar with. So after due consideration the appeal has been declined and the result stands as a win for NC1.
- University 1 appeal against penalty under rule C7 for playing an ungraded player without getting an interim grade from the Grading Officer. They did ask for this, but due to circumstances this was on the afternoon of the match and this was not ratified until after the match. The LMC recognised the attempt to get an estimated grade, and the desire not to default a board, but felt unable to rescind the penalty for playing an ungraded player who didn’t have an estimated grade at the time of the match.
- West Nottingham 4 appealed against the fine and points penalty for defaulting against Central 2 due to the sudden illness on the day of John Crawley, who was the transport and responsible adult for a team of juniors. The fine was revoked but the penalty points applied.
- Gambit have lodged an appeal against the decision of the LMC re item 6 above. The Chairman will review this with the other uninvolved members as only he and one other were present.