Logos, Banner by KaitlinB and Tom45.

Steering Committee members:
      Permanent Members:  DaveTheRook (chair), BosqueVerde, chesskix, rgadoury
      General Members: bmw2002, fledermaus, Invicta-knight, Kingofknights, RedAttack

Standing Subcommittee (Rules):
      rgadoury (chair), BosqueVerde, chesskix, Invicta-Knight

Standing Subcommittee (Technology):
     bmw2002 (chair), BosqueVerde, chesskix, DaveTheRook, fledermaus, 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  - T43 Tournament Parameters - Approved
Item 2 -  Proposed: Limit maximum rating allowed for teams in a Section
Item 3 -  Disconnections; Editorial Revision of statute 13.E.iii
Item 4 -  Games begun after Grace Period, Statute 10.F, FAQ 16.6, "Ready to play"

Item 1. T43 tournament parameters  - Approved
Submitted by the Chief TD:

Team entries accepted: October 6-20, 2009.
Team Entry Deadline: October 20, 2009.
Ratings "fixed" Date: September 29, 2009
(Some ratings may be adjusted by the Entry Clerk)

Round 1 Posted: 22:00 October 27, 2009.
Three rounds of playoffs will end January 12, 2010 (P2 runs Dec. 22 to Jan. 5 - two weeks)
Count of team RR reductions (if any) precedes board removal tiebreak.
Tiebreak board removal rules start with board 1 this tournament

APPROVED: 9 yes, 0 no; Sept 24, 2009

Item 2. Limit maximum rating allowed for teams in a Section.
Submitted by Rules Subcommittee, October 4, 2009

An SC member has proposed that there be a cap, or ceiling, on the highest rating allowed in a team for the section. Caps proposed are +300 (for lowest half of the sections) or +400 for all sections except U2200. Presently we have no ceilings, but we do have floors, 300 points below Section limit.

Rules has voted 2-2 (2 no; 2 for caps) on setting any caps. The two who voted for a cap offered the cap limit options.

The arguments for caps are:

We did not expect either a) any team to be submitted with such a ludicrous lineup, given the floors, nor b) any such team to do well. Yet, here we have a team, and they have made the playoffs. I propose that you not allow such a team in the future, rules change or no.

Asking the opponent to set aside a 3+ hour block of their week to play a game with a foregone conclusion is an embarrassment to the League. We advertise that our pairings are competitive. I would be sorely tempted to just resign in the Game Forum, at least at the first sign of scheduling difficulty.

I agree that we must remain aware that this is a team event. But not to the point of asking individuals to waste a 3-hour block of their week. We place great demands on the scheduling process, and individuals should not have to go through the motions for a meaningless game.

Banning someone from playing in a team in a section because he is rated too high is analogous to removing a player from a football team because he kicks a ball too hard or a runner from a relay team because he runs too fast.  Reply:  Great example. :-) Varsity players are not allowed to play on junior varsity teams.

The arguments against a cap are:

I’m one who loves to play up and I don’t see any competitive advantage from a team standpoint.

I think that we should remember that this is a team tourney. The makeup and the dynamics of a team is, and should be, the preserve of the team members under the leadership of the captain. If a team wants an extraordinarily high rated board in exchange for a comparatively low board 4 then this is good, and how it should be. I note that this question has arisen from only ONE instance of a team posting a very high board 1/low board 4 in all the time that I have been associated with the league (since T27).

Banning someone from playing in a team in a section because he is rated too high is analogous to removing a player from a football team because he kicks a ball too hard or a runner from a relay team because he runs too fast.

Item 2a:  Will there be caps in the lower sections?
By a vote of 5 yes, 3 no, and 1 abstention agenda item #2 part 1 has passed.
Oct 13, 2009

Item 2b:  Will there be caps in the top 4 sections?
By a vote of 9-0 we have decided no rating caps for our U2200, U2000, U1800 and U1600 sections. Oct 19, 2009

Item 2c:  What will the caps be in U1400 and U1200?

b. 200 point rating cap,
c. 300 point rating cap,
d. 400 point ratings cap.

By a vote of 8 for C and 1 for D the rating cap for the U1200 section will be 300 pts.
By a vote of 6 for C, 2 for D and 1 for B the ratings cap for the U1400 section will be 300 pts.
Oct 20, 2009

Item 3 Disconnections. Editorial revision.
Submitted by the Rules Subcommittee, Oct 20, 2009
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.

Section 11.E.iii, The opening and closing sentences of Section 11.E.iii have created more problems than they have solved, as many captains and players think they can negotiate or argue against whatever option the offended player has chosen. The two sentences are there to remind the players of civility and motives, but have more often served as bones of contention. Rules recommends that both sentences be removed, leaving a simply stated rule.

11.E.iii (Strike and add) In other situations that can best be described as technical difficulties, the intent and spirit of the league is that the games be played to a conclusion if possible. However, Disconnections - Should a player disconnect for more than 15 minutes (or multiple times totaling 30 minutes), the offended player may request a set game win, may offer to resume playing the game at a time convenient to him, or may choose to continue with the game as originally scheduled. It is expected that players and captains will discuss resolution of affected games with Section 3.B. in mind, and not question the motives of the opponent.

Items 4.a and 4.b.  Delays in starting games; Clarification of the 10.F (30 minute Grace Period) rule, and amendment of FAQ16.6

Problem, as presented by the Oversight Committee.

a. The Oversight Committee, in its deliberations, has determined it would like to see FAQ 16, item 6 dropped from the FAQ page. By a vote of 7-1, we feel that no games should be allowed to start after the grace period....and this particular item just adds confusion and the opportunity for Leaguers to 'take advantage' of a given situation.

The game in question started 17 minutes after the end of the grace period! We all felt this was way too late, and should never have been allowed. We feel players should / need be responsible for their own actions....if someone shows up 29:30 into the grace period, and the challenge isn't accepted in time, it's not okay. A timelier and quicker 'entrance' is required (like being on time). And if a situation like I just described happens....well, that's why the OC is here, right? We'll deal with it on a case-by-case basis.

b. Also, the question arose: what is the definition of being 'ready to play?' We couldn't find one, so we made one of our own. We would like this definition entered somewhere appropriate [on the FAQ page, or the OC page...]

- Not ready to play - "A player is 'not ready to play' if:

The player cannot access or use the challenge box or its 'ok' button [if automatic].....or
the player is prevented in any way from issuing / accepting a match challenge or using its 'ok' button [if manual]. If these situations do not apply, then a player is considered 'ready to play.'"

Previous SC Agendas: