Logos, Banner by KaitlinB and Tom45.

Standing Subcommittee (Rules):
      rgadoury (chair), BosqueVerde, chesskix, f5/fpawn

Standing Subcommittee (Technology):
     bmw2002 (chair), AlPearson, BosqueVerde, chesskix, DaveTheRook, fledermaus, Gomer, rgadoury

The role and purpose of the Steering Committee is to manage the affairs of the league, to set its direction and expansion, see to its advertisement and management, writing the Constitution, Statutes and Handbooks, and reviewing the rulings of the previous Oversight Committee. This is the ultimate governing body of Team 45 45 League with all rights and responsibilities. (Article III of the League Constitution)

League Members may stay informed of potential rules changes by watching this page. Prior to voting results being displayed here, members may make their comments known by notifying any Steering Committee member, who may choose to forward your comments to the Steering Committee. The Committee members will not disclose any details of the Committee discussions.
 

Item 1 - T36 Tournament Parameters - Approved
Item 2 - Reduction to successive same color assignments - Approved
Item 3 - Limitations on newbie captains - Approved
Item 3.b - RR +1 Required for newbie captains - Not Approved
Item 4 - Requirement to include weekend offers - No. Option C Approved
Item 5 -  Rescheduling, Conceding a Game, and Prior Notice of No-Show  - Clarifications Approved
Item 6 -  Game Forum Concede button - Not Approved
Item 7 - Restrict Roster Changes for Playoffs - Approved
Item 8 - Discussion of possible problems due to size of T36 Erg section
   - U1300 will be replaced by U1400 and U1200; 9 + divisions in a section will cause a split into two sections.
Item 9 - Clarify partial blame
Item 10 - Require offers after Fri 22:00 by the offended in the case of missing first contact deadline?
Item 11 - Editorial Revision Item 7

Item 1.  T36 tournament parameters
Submitted by the Chief TD; 11/27/2007

Time Control: 45 45
Sections: 5 (U2200, U2000, U1800, U1600, U1300)
Rounds: 6 - (possibly 7) followed by Playoffs

Team entries accepted: January 1, 2008 – January 15, 2008.
Team Entry Deadline: January 15, 2008.
Ratings "fixed" starting December 4, 2007.
(Some ratings may be adjusted by the Entry Clerk)

Round 1 Posted: 22:00 January 22, 2008.
Three rounds of playoffs will end April 1, 2008.

Count of team RR reductions (if any) precedes board removal tie-breaks.
Tiebreak board removal rules start with board 4 this tournament.

Approved - 8 yes, 0 no; 28 Nov, 2007

Item 2.  A proposed change to the 4-team schedule, to reduce successive same colors.
Submitted by Rules Subcommittee Chair; 11/28/07

Problem: Occasionally we get complaints that a player has the same color, usually the black pieces, three games in succession. Although the TEAM has an equal number of black and white pieces at each board over the course of six rounds, the 4-team schedule is set up in such a way that three “Home” or “Away” matches, and thus three games in succession with the same color at each board, are unavoidable.

Solution: Change the order of the rounds played to assure that each board plays no more than two games in succession with the same color. This change would be consistent with the Swiss system, whereby no one is forced to play three games in succession with the same color.

Proposal: That in the 4-team schedule, round 3 be played first. What is now rounds 1 2 3 4 5 6 would be played in the order 3 1 2 4 5 6. This requires that subparagraphs i, ii, iii, in Section 7.A. be reordered, as follows:

1. Seed 3 vs. Seed 1 and Seed 2 vs. Seed 4 (change to 1 vs 2and 4 vs 3)
2. Seed 1 vs. Seed 4 and Seed 3 vs. Seed 2 (change to 3 vs 1 and 2 vs 4)
3. Seed 1 vs. Seed 2 and Seed 4 vs. Seed 3 (change to 1 vs 4 and 3 vs 2)
4. Seed 1 vs. Seed 3 and Seed 4 vs. Seed 2
5. Seed 4 vs. Seed 1 and Seed 2 vs. Seed 3
6. Seed 2 vs. Seed 1 and Seed 3 vs. Seed 4

The programmers indicate that this is a simple change to make.

6-team schedule: One out of the six teams gets three Home or Away matches in succession. There is no way to avoid it, but it is limited to one of the six teams. The 7-team schedule is unaffected. Only team 4 gets three in succession, but one of them is the bye.

Approved - 10 yes, 0 no; 03 Dec, 2007

Item 3.  Proposed limits on newbie captains.
Submitted by Entry Clerk 12/03/07

Proposal: Require, rather than recommend, one tournament experience for captains? We have a number of failing teams due to captain inexperience. Requiring captain to have played one tourney might keep down the number of new teams coming in, but that might be a good thing.   Various options under discussion:

1. New rule: A team Captain must have at least 1 Tournament as Assistant Captain prior to being Captain
2. Players on each team (top 4 boards) have at least a combined 5 Tournaments of experience
3. A newbie Captain may request help from pool of Volunteer Captains
4. A newbie Captain must have a Volunteer (assistant) Captain if team Captain has no prior experience as Asst. Captain or Captain
5. A newbie Captain must have at least 1 Tournament as a player, but no prior Assistant Captain experience required

Approved - Option D 6, Option C 4; 06 Dec, 2007

Item 3.b  A first time, almost newbie, captain could be required to have a +1 RR.

NOT Approved - 1 yes, 9 no; 10 Dec, 2007

Item 4. Inclusion of a weekend time as one of the required offers.
Submitted by Chair or Rules Subcommittee 12/10/07

Problem. One of the most common reasons a game does not get played and must be adjudicated is when one or both players have eliminated the possibility of playing on the weekend due to various personal commitments, notably OTB tourneys, family events, or in some cases employment.

Facts. There is currently no specific statute that covers weekend play, other than it being one of the factors a TD may take into account in an adjudicated game. Every week, close to 60 percent of all league games are played on Saturday or Sunday. It is almost the only time that games can get played when players’ time zones differ greatly. Players do not know in advance who their opponents will be or their time zones, and thus cannot know that weekday times will fit both players.

Solution. Options:

1. Require at least one weekend time as part of the initial offers. For example, add to “Section 10.C. The player who initiates this dialog shall specify three or more distinct times to play on at least two different days within the one-week playing period of the round. At least one of the times must be on the weekend (ICC time), as it is often the only time players many time zones apart can find common ground.
2. If not a specific requirement in the statutes, prominently display in the handbooks that partial blame is assigned to the player who refused to offer or consider a weekend game.
3. Remove weekend references from the Handbooks, FAQ’s, By-Laws, etc. as specific justifications for partial blame.
4. None of the above.

Approved - Option C, 10 - 0; 13 Dec, 2007

Item 5. Clarifying rescheduling procedures and defining a conceded game.
Submitted by Rules Subcommittee

Problems. Two areas of confusion or differences of opinion have arisen in Section 10.G.

Section 10.G.i and ii now read:

i. Reschedule: A game time that has been agreed upon by both players is binding on both players and can only be changed (rescheduled) to another time if both players agree. The agreement to reschedule, if any, must be made (as evidenced in the Game Forum) prior to the end of the 30-minute grace period and is subject to all applicable scheduling and deadline rules. Should there be no reschedule and the game not be played, a Reliability Rating Point must be deducted from the player who was unable to honor the scheduled game time.

ii. Advance Notice and Conceding a game: Should a player post before game time that he/she is unable to be present at the agreed time, and concede the game to the opponent; the opponent will receive the game point and need not be present at the agreed time. Conceding a game before it starts constitutes a forfeit (automatic Reliability Rating point reduction).

Question 1 - What agreement is required to reschedule a game prior to the end of the grace period—Agreement to reschedule, or actual agreement on the new date?

Rules Subcommittee is in agreement that the answer to the first problem is that only an “agreement TO reschedule” is required in 10.G.i, and that negotiations to find a new time can go beyond the end of the grace period. Rules Sub is also in agreement that should a new time not be agreed to, that the player who originally asked to reschedule should be charged with the forfeit loss. 10.G.i is proposed to be amended to read as follows:

i. Reschedule: A game time that has been agreed upon by both players is binding on both players and can only be changed (rescheduled) to another time if both players agree. The agreement to reschedule, if any, must be made (as evidenced in the Game Forum) prior to the end of the 30-minute grace period. The actual rescheduling discussions may take place later. If no reschedule is reached, resulting in the game not played, a Reliability Rating Point must be deducted from the player who originally asked to reschedule.

Result of Item 5, Part 1:  The SC has voted unanimously that only an “agreement TO reschedule” is required in 10.G.i, that negotiations to find a new time can go beyond the end of the grace period, and that if a new time not be agreed to, that the player who originally asked to reschedule should be charged with the forfeit loss. 10.G.i is to be amended to read as follows:

10.G.i (revised). Reschedule: A game time that has been agreed upon by both players is binding on both players and can only be changed (rescheduled) to another time if both players agree. The agreement to reschedule, if any, must be made (as evidenced in the Game Forum) prior to the end of the 30-minute grace period. The actual rescheduling discussions may take place later, and if rescheduled, the game must be completed by the deadline to complete games of the next round. If no reschedule is reached, resulting in the game not played, a Reliability Rating Point must be deducted from the player who originally asked to reschedule.

Question 2 - When can a game considered to be conceded and when is an opponent released from showing up at the agreed time?

Rules Subcommittee has differing viewpoints. When it was written the person who wrote it (rgadoury) intended the first few words be merely introduction to the what to do with a game actually conceded beforehand, that it was a forfeit and the opponent did not have to show up at the agreed time. Disputes arose during T35 as to whether “Advance Notice” under other circumstances freed the opponent from showing up and also constituting a conceded game. Rules Subcommittee presents two options.

Option 2.a. If only a conceded game is to free the opponent from showing up, 10.G.ii can be amended to remove any mention of “advance notice.”

ii. Conceding a game: If a player at any time posts in the Forum that he/she concedes the game to the opponent, the opponent will receive the game point and need not be present at any agreed time. Conceding a game before it starts constitutes a forfeit (automatic Reliability Rating point reduction). If the game is not actually conceded in the Forum, then the opponent is still required to be present at the agreed time.

Option 2.b Is to add to the statute Advance Notice of No-Show as releasing the opponent from showing up at the agreed time. Under this option 10.G.ii is separated into two parts, Advance Notice of No-Show and Conceding the Game.

ii Advance Notice of No-Show: If a player posts before game time that he/she is unable to be present at the agreed time, the opponent is released from the obligation of being present at the agreed time.

iii Conceding a Game: If a player at any time posts in the Forum that he/she concedes the game to the opponent, the opponent will receive the game point and need not be present at any agreed time. Conceding a game before it starts constitutes a forfeit (automatic Reliability Rating point reduction). The player who concedes will receive a forfeit loss with automatic Reliability Rating point reduction.

Result of Item 5, Part 2 -  Statute 10.G.ii. already explains what happens if a player says "I concede". We are working to determine the grey area decisions.  The Steering Committee voted on these options:

1. If you are not sure that your opponent has conceded … show up.  <2 votes>
2. Let the TDs decide each case on its own merit. If someone is upset by the decision, they can appeal.  <7 votes>
3. Remove the Concede rule entirely.  <1 vote>
4. The game time MUST still be binding unless the opponent specifically says the keywords "I concede" or "I resign" or "you win" *OR* the tournament director makes a statement that the game is officially forfeited.
5. "I won't be there" IS a concession, and would not require an appearance.

Choice 2 was approved by majority vote. 

Subsequently, the following revisions were made, in accordance with decisions 1 and 2: 

A.  10.G.i. (current) Reschedule: A game time that has been agreed upon by both players is binding on both players and can only be changed (rescheduled) to another time if both players agree. The agreement to reschedule, if any, must be made (as evidenced in the Game Forum) prior to the end of the 30-minute grace period and is subject to all applicable scheduling and deadline rules. Should there be no reschedule and the game not be played, a Reliability Rating Point must be deducted from the player who was unable to honor the scheduled game time.

10.G.i (revised). Reschedule: A game time that has been agreed upon by both players is binding on both players and can only be changed (rescheduled) to another time if both players agree. The agreement to reschedule, if any, must be made (as evidenced in the Game Forum) prior to the end of the 30-minute grace period. The actual rescheduling discussions may take place later, and if rescheduled, the game must be completed by the deadline for the round. If no rescheduled time is reached, resulting in the game not played, a Reliability Rating Point must be deducted from the player who originally asked to reschedule.

B.  10.G. ii. (current) Advance Notice and Conceding a game: Should a player post before game time that he/she is unable to be present at the agreed time, and concede the game to the opponent; the opponent will receive the game point and need not be present at the agreed time. Conceding a game before it starts constitutes a forfeit (automatic Reliability Rating point reduction).

10.G.ii (revised) If a player at any time posts in the Forum that he/she concedes the game to the opponent, the opponent will receive the game point and need not be present at any agreed time. Conceding a game before it starts constitutes a forfeit (automatic Reliability Rating point reduction). The TD will judge whether the Game Forum message constitutes a concession, for example, when the player states that he is unable to play, or unable to meet a previously agreed time. The concession becomes official when the TD posts the forfeit.

Approved - 9 Yes, 0 no, 1 abstain; 6 Jan 2008

Item 6. Add a "Concede" button to the Game forum options, to reduce the chance of misunderstandings.
Submitted by the Chair, per SC discussion 12/17/07

During discussion of Item 5, the idea of a "concede" button came up as proactive measure against unclear statements of concession.

NOT Approved -  3 yes, 7 no; 1 Jan 2008

Item 7. Proposal to limit roster changes in the playoffs.
Submitted 1/6/08

A league member has objected to our current policy that permits changes to a team roster throughout the playoffs, and has proposed that the team rosters used in the playoffs be the same as in regulation play. A specific rule change was included.

Rules Subcommittee has edited the specific proposal and submits it as an amendment to the statutes.

Section 16. E. (new) Playoffs. Roster changes are not permitted during the playoffs. The same team that played in regulation shall be the team used in the playoffs. The deadline to make roster changes is the Pairing Posting Deadline (PPD) for round 6 (or round 7 in a 7-team section). Only the players registered with the team at the specified PPD can play in any of the playoff matches (16.B.ii and iv no longer apply). Changes to default board assignment are allowed throughout the playoffs.

Advantages. Opposing teams will know who they may be playing and have league records of their opponents to review in preparation. The change is consistent with roster limitation rules of many other leagues, in many other sports. Teams may not take advantage of our Fixed Rating practices by adding underrated players at the last minute.

Disadvantages. Teams may find themselves short of players through unavoidable circumstances

The final version voted upon allows changes below board 4:

Section 16.E. (new) Playoffs. Teams in the playoffs shall have the same players on Boards 1-4 as they had at the beginning of round 6, with the exception of players removed due to administrative reasons (e.g. reliability rating of -2 or red card). Once round 6 starts, teams may fill available roster spots only with players whose fixed ratings are lower than the fixed rating of the fourth highest player at the beginning of round 6.

Approved -  6 yes, 4 no; 13 Jan 2008

Item 8.  Discussion: T36 Erg Enrollment may exceed current capacity, given current format.
Submitted 1/15/08

If 36 or more Erg teams enter, given all current schedules, we would need to extend the playoffs a week longer than usual, delaying T37.   Solutions discussed: 1 - switching to six-team divisions (this would reduce the number of playoff teams, therefore also reduce playoff weeks); 2 - dividing Erg into two sections (per statute 6.D); 3 - Denying entry to excess teams (either beginning with the 36th team to enter, or beginning with teams that have not supplied TD volunteers);  4 - Eliminating the final playoff round, declaring the last two teams to be co-champions.

Options 1 and 2 appeared to be prohibited due to programming issues.  Option 3 was given serious consideration, until Option 4 was brought forward.  The discussion became moot when the team entry deadline passed without Erg enrollment reaching 36 teams. 

The concern remains a probable issue for upcoming tournaments, and long term solutions will be sought.  Discussion surrounds possible adjustment of section limits to reduce the size of Erg, as well as enhance the league experience in other aspects.

Item 8.a.  Move to sections of U2200, U2000, U1800, U1600, U1400 and U1200 instead of our current format.

Approved - 10 yes, 0 no; 29 Jan 2008

Item 8.b.  A "grid system", whereby the greatest number of divisions will remain 8.  When teams exceed the capacity of 8 divisions of 4 teams each, rather than adding divisions, the 8 divisions will increasing accommodate 5 and 6 teams.
Not approved - 3 yes, 6 no, 1 abstention; 3 Feb 2008

Item 8.c.  Split a large section into two sections, to reduce the number of weeks needed for playoffs: In the event of an over crowded section, with more than 32 teams entered, we split that section into two sections, such as U1600 Blue and U1600 Red. After the traditional playoff format is completed we may, or may not have a championship round between the two section winners (Blue and Red).
Approved - 6 yes, 4 no; 6 Feb 2008

Clarification: The break is 35/36 teams. 35 8 divisions, 36 nine divisions.

Item 9. How many counts of partial blame can a single post contain?
Submitted by SC member, 2/17/08

Player makes three offers, but one in the adjournment week. He has now violated 10.C.i, 10.C.ii and 15.A.ii.b plus 10.C.viii. in a single breath. He has partial blame for failing to make three offers in the first week plus he has partial blame for offering an adjournment without making those three offers. Is that intended to be TWO partial blames (i.e. full blame) or one? Should one technicality (a fairly common one in fact) result in double partial blame? I believe someone who makes two valid offers and one in the second week should not be punished the same as someone who makes no contact at all.

Suggestion: Add statute 15.A.ii.f: Each single action or forum post may constitute at most one incident of partial blame, even if more than one statute has been violated.

Approved - 10 Yes, 0 No; 24 Feb 2008

Item 10.  Failure to meet the first contact deadline, but no future offers outstanding.
Submitted by SC member 2/17/08

Player makes the following offers: Wednesday 1300-1700, Thursday 10:00. His opponent fails to post by Thursday 22:00 but shows up on Friday. Since the statutes require him to accept one of his opponents offers and he can't, he must forfeit. Statute 10.D.i seems to assume that there are offers to accept, but makes no mention of what happens if there are not. Certainly this would be a clever way to exploit the league contact rules--in apparent violation of the "peaceful enjoyment" that we always talk about. In fact, even if the second player follows the rules properly and posts on Thursday at 12:00, he has no offers from his opponent to consider.

Suggestion: Modify statute 10.C.i. to require at least one (two?) offer beyond Friday at 22:00.

Not Approved - 0 yes, 9 no, 1 abstain; 5 Mar 2008

Item 11.  Editorial Revision of 16.C.vi
Submitted by Asst Chief TD and League Secretary, in response to confusion among the membership at the original wording.  29/2/08

16.C.vi. Limitations to Roster Additions for Playoffs - At the Pairing Posting Deadline for Round 6, the fixed rating of a team's fourth highest rated player establishes that team's playoff "ceiling." Once Round 6 begins, roster additions (including the replacement of any removed players) shall be limited to players whose fixed ratings are lower than the team's ceiling.

Under our editorial revision policy, unless a SC member wishes to bring it up for further debate, this change will be incorporated into the Statutes in one week

Previous SC Agendas: