Minutes of the League Management Committee Meeting at Syston on Thursday 26 June 2008

Present: Jim Bingham, Iain Dodds, Walter Dehnen (WD), Sean Hewitt (SH), Julie Johnson, Jim Miller (JNM), John Pattinson, David Reynolds (DR), Mike Thornton.

1. Apologies

Apologies had been received from Alan Jex, Mike Salisbury and Peter Harrison.  It was agreed that JNM would take the Chair in the absence of AJ, and he welcomed everyone, including WD and DR as new members.

2. LMC Membership and Constitution

It was agreed unanimously that (a) The Chair should have a vote and a casting vote at LMC meetings; (b) The Chairman, Secretary, and Treasurer of LRCA Ltd should be LMC members; and that up to 3 further members could be co-opted for special reasons; (c) Mike Salisbury should be co-opted for 2008-9 as the immediate past Treasurer; and (d) The number of clubs required to summon an EGM should be one-third of the total number of clubs in membership of LRCA Ltd in any given season, the number to rounded down if necessary (this will mean that the critical number for 2008-9 will almost certainly be 4).  It was further agreed that JNM would circulate the revised draft constitution to all clubs, noting that it would need formal approval at the 2009 AGM, but would be presumed to be in force meanwhile.

3. League Rules for 2008-9

Four major issues were discussed under this item.  The discussion followed circulation of a paper showing the responses of 8 clubs (a clear majority of both clubs and players) to JNM"s request for comments.  It was also noted by SH that, despite some absentees, all the clubs with members who would normally be at LMC did in fact have at least one member present, so the meeting was fully representative.

3.1 The great majority of comments received strongly favoured the abolition of adjudications in League games, and it was noted that the Laws of Chess do not provide for such a process.  It was felt that some – but hopefully a diminishing number – of players were still opposed to or apprehensive about the rapid-play finish.  It was therefore proposed that, for all Divisions, the play-to-a-finish time limits would be the default option.  This would mean that adjudications would still be possible if both players agreed to it.  This was agreed by 6 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions.

3.2 It was agreed unanimously that each club would be asked to specify a start time for all its matches when submitting their team application form.  Start times (7.15 or 7.30 pm) will be listed in the Handbook (as at present).  Clubs would be encouraged to use 3-hour default time limits unless conditions at their venues made it impossible.  The shorter time limits will be still be available in the case of long (>30-minute) journeys and/or the inclusion of one or more junior players.  The period during which substitutes are allowed under the [present] Rule 7 would end 45 minutes after the home club"s listed start time, irrespective of the moment when the match actually started.

3.3 After much discussion the following procedures for dealing with disputes were agreed.  In every instance the initial decision will be made by the League Secretary, or (if s/he is unsuitable because of a conflict of interest) by another LMC member [an ordered list of LMC members for this purpose will be drawn up].  The League Secretary or alternate will base his/her decision on written or e-mail or phone evidence from the club or clubs involved in the dispute, and will explain in full his/her decision to those clubs.  A club could appeal against such a decision only on the grounds that it was perverse in view of the known facts, that the penalty imposed was unfair or disproportionate, or that the decision was procedurally defective or involved an unacceptable conflict of interest.  No new evidence will be allowed at such an appeal, which will be heard by the LMC (minus any members with a conflict of interest).  A club entering an appeal will be required to pay a financial deposit, but this would be retained by the LMC only if on hearing the appeal it was felt to be frivolous or unwarranted.  The only parties to the appeal will be the League Secretary or alternate, who would provide the background information and the reasons for the initial decision, and the appellant club.  These procedures were agreed by 8 votes to 0 with one abstention.  The result of the appeal might be (a) the appeal is rejected, in which case the appeal decision is final; (b) the appeal is allowed and the original decision is reversed or appropriately amended, in which case again the decision is final; or (c) the case is referred back for a re-hearing, which will be conducted by three individuals who were not LMC members and who did not have any conflict of interest.  In case (c) the decision of the three individuals is final.  These procedures were also agreed by 8 votes to 0 with one abstention.

3.4 LMC agreed that the aim of the Rules in all matches should be to see that the players in each team played in a proper strength order, and that the Rules must be absolutely clear and unambiguous about the approach to be used to achieve this.  JNM suggested that this could be done in one of two ways.  (A) At the start of a League season, each club should submit a list of its players in perceived OOS.  In such a list the published ECF normal play grading list in force on the first day of the League season would be used, but it would be open to clubs to place players in reverse grading order in their list, provided that the points difference was not more than [e.g.] ten points.  (For clubs failing to submit a list their board orders in their initial matches would be taken as their OOS, and if those board orders were in breach of the [ten] point flexibility rule, they would receive a penalty).  Once such OOS lists were established clubs would be expected to adhere strictly to them for the whole of a season.  It would be open to clubs to ask the League Secretary, with a given period of notice and supporting evidence, to change the order, but it would be expected that such requests would be rare, arising only in cases such as a significant illness, or the very rapid development of a young player.  (B) Each team in each match would play in grade order (ECF grades as above) but with the flexibility that two players whose grades to do not differ by more than 5 points (see below) can play in any order.  (Example: if A, B, and C have grades 156, 153 and 150 respectively, A must always play above C but B could play in any of the possible three positions).  This approach gives clubs/teams more day-to-day flexibility.  SH pointed out that for 2008-9 that each player would have two normal play grades, one directly related to his previous grade, and the second one modified to take into account the grade drift that had occurred over recent years.  It was agreed unanimously that the new grade would be used for all League purposes.  Since the new grades were liable to be more compressed than the old ones (i.e.  players with lower grades would be likely to receive more of an uplift on average than those with higher grades) it was proposed that in this model the flexibility should be limited to 5 points.  In two separate votes option (A) was defeated by 3 votes to 6, while option (B) was agreed also by 6 votes to 3.  JNM suggested that this narrower range would also emphasise LMC's commitment to the OOS principle, but SH reminded the meeting of his view that grade and OOS were not necessarily synonymous, and it was again agreed that in the published Rules, the phrase OOS should not be used – just the 5-point flexibility.

4. Any Other Business

JNM reminded members that a meeting involving all LMC members and all clubs would be called for Thursday 17 July, the main aims being to clarify for clubs the agreed Rule changes; to seek their views on whether their players wished to play more games than at present; and hence advise on the optimum format for the 2008-9 League, in terms of the number of teams in each Division, the barring rules etc.  JNM also reported that about 35 teams might enter next year (his "best guess").  MT said that he would be unable to attend the meeting, but asked LMC to bear in mind that 9-team divisions, with each team playing twice against each other, made for almost insuperable fixture scheduling problems.

JNM – 27 June 2008