WCL 2019: Rules

Why don’t you change it next year to be 1 in every group of 4 joined.  That’s more obvious and what you are doing.  Not 3 in 12.   

The crucial part of the rules is "... and max 25% in total". The slicing into groups of 12 is only for large matches.

We had a big discussion some seasons ago about this rule with admin @Phoenix_Scorpion. I was in favour of a simpler rule (using, as you suggest, groups of 4), but there was no majority at that time.

Given the experience with the Adelaide vs Misurata case, we may change the rule for next season. But there is no rule change during the season. The current rule is in essence "maximum 25% in total".

We can discuss this change, but I don't think that we want to start to work with screenshots. As the rule stands, each team needs to make sure that, given the current state of registrations, the foreign-flag player maximum is warranted. So if you opponent has 7 registrations, you may only have one ff player on your first 7 boards.

I didn’t understand that was the case and even if I take a screenshot prior to sleeping these matches start at 3.30am our time and it is unreasonable to expect admin to be watching our opponents joining at that hour.  

If Misurata  had provided 12 players there were be no problem here and I can’t be responsible for what opponent teams do.  And we need a rule that allows for this.  

When I looked yesterday we had over 20 players joined and 4 foreign flag bearers in total and I didn’t promote this match and could have had many more joined because our opponents weren’t providing any people to play. 

Will Adelaide be penalised?

And it isn’t - 25% in each cumulative (possibly incomplete) block of 12 players at all.  Makes no sense to me.  

And we had less than 25% joined overall and so have fulfilled the rule - and max 25% in total 

not our fault Misurata only provided 7 opponents

It doesn’t say in the rules only for large matches.  The rules need changing because I am doing the best I can to follow the rules and now Adelaide may get penalised.  And I am not happy with that.

No you can’t be responsible for how many players your opponent provides.  We had over 20 and 4 foreign flag bearers in total and there was 3 in the top 12 boards which I thought was ok under the rules as it doesn’t say active players and does say incomplete group of 12.  We were trying to do the right thing.  These players are long term players of Adelaide.  

And when I go to sleep I don’t know how many players my opponent is going to add before it starts.  And I am not awake at 3.30am (usually)

And I wouldn’t have removed them anyway as I thought that was ok under the rules.  

I need to know if Adelaide will be penalised so it can be discussed within the club.  As it seems very unfair.  

They will be assimilated. Resistence is futile.

@Kookaburrra:

First of all, you administrate your team. That's your "job". So you have to be aware regarding your registrations (ff, TO, multiplayer etc). You could argue that we can change rules to simplify things, but please, your complain "If Misurata  had provided 12 players there were be no problem here and I can’t be responsible for what opponent teams do", has no valid arguments as long as Misurata registered 7 players, above the minimum limit of 5. So, it is your duty to make sure everything is ok, and if it was not, don't try to excuse yourself blaming others, which respected the rules.

To avoid similar ff registration issues in the future, you could check that above the minimum registration limit, the n-th registered ff on table m, respects m >= 4*n (or the equivalent m*25% >= n).

As an example, in your case, you have the minimum limit 5. This means that your first ff could be on any table from 1 to 4, but the next one should be at table at least 8, then, the third at table at least 12 and so on. In this way you would not depend by the number of opposing registered players and you will not loose to much time and energy complaining.

@BorgQueen:

When sport immigrants represents Australia at Olympic Games, they wear Australia flag and not their foreign land flag.

What do the directors of this league say as I’ve had conversations before about this and understood it was 3 in an incomplete group of 12.  Obviously this is not the case I am finding out.  I want to know if Adelaide will be penalised and I think this should not be the case.  

I am not an incompetent admin.  The rules were not clear.  

@Radmar - I thought everything was OK and there was no indication otherwise.  

• The rules are clear in that they say that there is a 25% maximum in total. Adeleide has thus two irregular foreign-flag players in the match against Misurata (3 out of 7, where 1 is the maximum). The games on boards #4 and #6 will be counted as forfeit wins for Misurata.
• Admittedly, the part of the rules that is about the partitioning into 12-player slices is not particularly clear. It will be revised for next season.
• To be on safe ground, the task of the admins is to restrict the number of foreign-flag players to 25% on the first n boards, where n is the number of currently registered players of the opponent. If the share is above 25% on the first n boards, this is a voluntary risk that the team (admin) takes, hoping for further registrations of the opponent.

So you are going to penalise Adelaide even though you admit this rule is unclear.  

• The 25% rule exists to exclude "city" teams that collect their players from all over the world without any connection to the city. We have had cases like this in the past and most teams (admins) agree that these teams are not welcome in the WCL.
• A maximum of 25% on foreign flags is admittedly an imperfect means to achieve this goal, but until now, no-one has come up with a better solution.
• The 25% limit has been subject to hot debates in the past. There are admins who are against the foreign-flag rule altogether and admins that want a stricter rule. 25% seems like a reasonable compromise and it is unlikely that a new debate would lead to a radically diverging result.

• To be on safe ground, the task of the admins is to restrict the number of foreign-flag players to 25% on the first n boards, where n is the number of currently registered players of the opponent. If the share is above 25% on the first n boards, this is a voluntary risk that the team (admin) takes, hoping for further registrations of the opponent.

This was not in the rules.  Previously.  

I will accept the league directors decision but I am not happy and feel like the club I represent has been dealt harshly with.  

And I am not incompetent 

No, the last bullet is an advice that everyone can derive if you know that there is a 25% limit on foreign-flag players in total.

I echo @BorgQueen: while it's changed over the last 2-3 decades, we still have very many "foreign" accents at the Melbourne Chess Club. Some, like WGM Julia Ryjanova change their FIDE federation to Australia. Her husband (an IM) and son (junior) haven't switched, but they do live here. Arguably any of them could play for Melbourne/Australia, Qatar (where they lived previously) or the region of Russia at least Julia and Aleksei grew up in.