Logos, Banner by KaitlinB and Tom45.
Team 45 45 League
Serious Chess and Team Spirit on the ICC
T51-52 STEERING COMMITTEE AGENDA
Steering Committee members:
Standing Subcommittee (Rules):
Standing Subcommittee (Technology):
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 T52 Tournament Parameters - Approved
Item 2 Move Administrative Rule #7 to the statutes - Approved
Item 3 Modify board assignment rule to allow late changes without RR penalty. - Not approved
Team seeding table for playoffs
Time Control: 45 45
Team entries accepted: January 24, 2012
Round 1 Posted: February 14, 2012.
Count of team RR reductions (if any) precedes board removal tiebreak.
Playoff rounds may be delayed, section by section, for late finishing games and outstanding appeals.
No adjournment week during playoffs
Approved 9-0 December 23, 2011
Item 2. Move Administrative Rule 7 to the statutes.
Problem. In T51 there were two tie votes on appeals of TD rulings by the Oversight Committee. Initially the proper ruling was made, “…as it takes a majority to change a game decision, this means the game decision will stand as is.” After those OC Decisions were posted we found in the OC “ethos” a statement that ties favor the appellant. As there was no distinction made in the “ethos” between TD rulings and cards, the OC changed their decision, thus overturning the TD’s rulings.
The problem came about because Administrative Rule #7 was written a year after the “ethos” was written, clarifying that a majority vote is required to overturn a TD ruling. In the ensuing years some of us completely forgot about it.
It is the opinion of the Rules Subcommittee that Administrative Rule 7 is the better rule, that it should require a majority vote to overturn a TD’s ruling, not a tie vote. An analogy might be several sports where there must be clear video evidence to overturn the referee’s ruling on the field.
The confusion came from having two differing rules in two places
Solution. Combine elements of the OC “ethos” and Admin Rule 7 to the statutes, By doing this we’ll have the entire rule in one place, along with the rest of the rules on appeals.
Section 17.E.iii (new). Voting decisions on appeals are reached by simple majority. On any occasion where there is a tie in the vote, the benefit will be given to the TD for game related rulings and to the Appellant for behavioural issues.
The original rules were:
Rules also thought it wise to modify Section15.D for clarity.
Revise to read: “TD decisions in a game may be appealed by the two teams directly involved. Third Party appeals are only allowed by teams in the same division, and only on games requiring a TD decision. “
The SC is being asked to
(1) Confirm the substance of Admin Rule 7, requiring a clear majority to overturn TD rulings, by placing it in the statutes as Section 17.E.iii, and
(2) Approve modification of Section 15.D
Submitted by Rules Subcommittee
Approved 8-0 with 1 abstention January 16, 2012
Item 3 Modify board assignment rule to allow late changes without RR penalty.
A member suggested that the rule about captain error (Sect. 17.A.i.d) for incorrect board assignments be modified to allow changes to the board assignments shortly after the Pairing Posting Deadline (PPD) without the usual penalty of an RR reduction to the player or the captain. The rule might read:
Sect. 9.B.iii (proposed) If a captain notifies the entry clerk no later than 8 hours after the PPD that one of his players should not be in the lineup, the Entry Clerk shall modify the pairing/forum in accordance with 9.B.ii and post set game loss (x:i) at board 4. Under this rule the team is charged with a forfeit, but no RR reduction is awarded to the player or captain.
It was the unanimous opinion (4-0) of the Rules Subcommittee that such a rule should not be adopted.
Advantages: From a competition standpoint the only advantage to such a rule is that the removal of the absent player would force other players to higher boards, as described in Section 9.B.ii, an advantage to the "offended" team.
Disadvantages: As a practical matter, such a change could only be made in the first few hours after the PPD, so as not to interfere in the normal game scheduling process; such a rule would be disruptive to negotiations that may already be underway; there is no realistic way to arrive at a suitable time limit for making the change; it presumes that the Entry Clerk is always available and could be quickly informed of the need to make a change. Other comments: There has to be a deadline for a lineup. The present system and current rules are time tested and very successful and accommodating.
Rules submitted this proposal, with the 4-0 vote against, to the Chief TD, who concurred. As there were already five (out of nine) votes against this proposal, it was not presented to the full Steering Committee.
Not approved. March 13, 2012
Seed order of Playoff teams, T52.
Previous SC Agendas: