ECF membership

No player may play more than three graded games in NSDCA events unless they are members of the ECF. Any player fielded in contravention of this will be regarded as an ineligible player.

with it being understood that

However the game will still be graded and the player's club will still be liable for any residual game fees levied on the Association by the ECF.

Unfortunately this was a rule that the secretary saw fit to change in his allegedly correct version of the rules. In correcting it he goes for a completely different wording, which niggles rather than matters. However the rewrite misses the chance to clarify that, as I imagine most people assume, the restriction applies to each year separately - no-one wants to keep track of non-member games played over several years to levy a penalty on a player turning out for the fourth time in say three years.

Fifteen point rule and estimated grades

Further we still have lots of nonsense about shadow lists:
The 'shadow' grading list as circulated by the League General Secretary should be consulted for ungraded players. Until the current season's grading list is available, the previous season's list should be used. Players with no grade on the circulated list should play in order of strength according to the team captain's own estimation of their grade.

Yet by looking at the online grading list one can see the values used by the ECF for ungraded players when calculating thir opponents grades. No need to wait months for the secretary to distribute something. Equally no worries about using last seasons grades until the current seasons become available.

However given the nonsense with Kas Capatina's estimate last year we definitely need a statement that the grading officer will keep an eye on the performances of ungraded players, issuing a new estimate whenever it becomes apparent an ungraded players performance differs significantly from the original estimate.

Gone Missing

If a player is absent when play is about to begin, the opposing captain may require all the remaining members of the team to move up to fill the gap whilst retaining the original order. The latecomer may be allowed to play on the highest available board at his time of arrival.

Like the player it refers to, this rule has gone missing. Why?

Sideways Reserving

With the exception of in the lowest Division, a player may only play for one team in each Division in any given season..

The apparent motivation is to improve team spirit by not allowing an interloper from the "other" team to disrupt it. Well if that's the way you feel, don't use sideways reserving for your team(s)!

I must disclose an interest here. Apart from Cheddleton, who are behind the change, the only teams that would have been affected last year had this change been in place were the Newcastle division 3 teams.

The change would of course effect any club who in future wanted to field two teams in the same division. In particular one could imagine Fenton and/or Meir through player turnover and/or improvement reaching a stage where they would prefer to enter two teams in division four and one in five, rather than one in four and two in five. Removing sideways reserving would act as a disincentive to so doing.

What would be the most likely consequence of adopting this proposal? Apart from Cheddleton no club used as many as 20 players last season, so split that in two and you are looking at fairly limited numbers for your squad, particularly as some combinations of players may not be eligible. Throw in a missing body or two from the team proper, else you're not looking for reserves, another match on the same night, or within the same week involving potential subs who won't play more than once a week, and you soon reach "Can't raise a team, postpone". Yes, this is a "let's have more postponements" proposal.

Secondly: In the lowest Division, a player graded 90 or above may only play for one team in that Division. represents a one point change as currently it is players graded 90 and below who can sideways reserve. Thus whereas currently a player graded 90 can reserve, it is proposed that in future they cannot. Presumably this is one of those small changes that prove the superiority of those behind it.

Official scoresheet

Another example of nit-picking officialdom. Having received plenty of results in my time I can safely say that they contain enough strange spellings and abbreviations that putting them on an official scoresheet will help no-one. Moreover the grades will need to be checked to confirm the legality of teams, so no saving there either. Officiousness for the sake of it.

Little England

Fischer

Smoking

Splitting ties

Postponements

Good News

This year's agenda measures up poorly. The committees proposed new rules and constitution (though they haven't really come from the committee) appears in the first part before election of officers. Maybe the secretary is concerned that Bill's replacement as treasurer cannot be relied on to vote in the required direction.

Three further proposals appear later in the agenda, one before and two after entries are due to be taken. There also seems to be some proposals missing, though perhaps I'm misunderstanding what I've been told.

So what of the three further proposals?

First up we have one which for its undesirability might as well have been presented with the rest of the unwanted changes to the rules and constitution designed to put distance between rulers and ruled:

We stop asking clubs at the AGM which divisions/cups they wish to enter. Instead clubs should submit their entries to the General Secretary & Fixtures Secretary, in writing or by email, by 14th August.  No additional entries to be accepted after this date.
Provisional fixture lists to be published 21st August.
Requests for changes to be submitted to Fixtures Secretary by 7th September.
Revised fixture lists to be published on the website by 14th September.
Cup draws to be made by the Tournament Controller as soon as possible after clubs have declared their intentions.

Which are the most interesting/enjoyable parts of the AGM? Get rid of them and perhaps fewer people will turn up, making it easier for the executive to get their ideas adopted.

I feel the need to switch into boasting mode here and point out that I have more than a little experience at writing Stoke League fixtures. These could of course be derived from standard tables, but this would inevitably lead to clubs being asked to field more teams on a night than they wish, or host more matches than there venue can hold, or play on specific nights that are known not to suit, or provide clashes between teams whose fixtures should be kept apart. The fixture secretary's job is in effect to save umpteen people in charge of clubs and teams having to sort out their own problems. It is a non-trivial job, but there is nothing in these proposals that would make the job easier or enable a better set of fixtures to be produced. Instead we have a "knowledge is power" type adjustment, complete with a new role for the leagues proprietor, sorry, general secretary, and a new title of tournament controller for the publicity officer to lust after.

I've a sneaking suspicion that you will have worked out that I'll be voting against this proposal.

Next up is a proposal to extend the 60 move playing session from 170 minutes to 3 hours. Previous attempts to lengthen the playing session have fallen foul of practicality issues. However at the moment I don't think any clubs have problems with using their venues later, so that is one hurdle cleared. The other hurdle is that particularly for away teams the change would add ten minutes to the night at a point when 10 minutes makes a difference. Me, I'm happy either way, though I think it would help if the rules on time controls started with something along the lines of "The normal starting time is 7.30" so that all the comments about 7.40 are seen to apply to the end of a period of grace rather than as a starting point beyond which things are liable to drift.

The final proposal, in which I have a hand, involves treating F-category grades as estimates. The F-category is a new one released by the ECF in January 2015, and aimed at giving people a published grade as soon as possible through being based on possibly as few as 5 games. Thus the ECF have changed the definition of a published grade, and I think we should consider whether we want to go along with their new definition or continue with the old one. As Ian and I lean towards continuing with the old definition, we've come up with this proposal, but we're not going to throwing our toys out of the pram if it is rejected.

After completing my run down of the proposed changes to the constitution I created a single document showing both the latest agreed constitution and the suggested replacement. Doing the same for the rules is harder. Why? 9c of the constitution gives "Any proposed change of rule approved by a simple majority at the Annual General Meeting shall be written immediately into the League Rules and become operative from that time" and implies that there is no such thing as an additional rule which is not part of the rules. Despite this and although we have now completed nine seasons with our current system, the secretary has refused point blank to produce a rules document which contains the agreed constraints on assembling teams. He has also completely changed the meaning of the ECF membership clause in the document that he misleadingly claims is correct. Further over time odd words have been changed without changing meaning. Consequently finding a correct document to start from is difficult.