8. New Business

[Michael von Keitz]

New business goes here.

[Michael von Keitz]

NOTE: The following is presented for discussion. It will be on the agenda in April.

2013-S Olympic Regulations (McKim/Rekhson)

i) The following alterations to the Olympic rules are to remove the selection committee and use only the selection rating for team inclusion.

1) Delete 904 (a) and renumber other parts of 904. Remove reference to selection committee on 904 (b)

2) Delete 905 and renumber other sections.

3) Alter 906 (b) & (c). (ii) alter "three highest rated players" to "four highest rated players" , (iii) delete

4) Alter 911 (a) - delete "he or she shall be replaced by the next player on the Selection Committee List. If the Selection Committee List is exhausted,"

ii) The following alterations to the Olympic rules are to alter the selection rules and role of the team captain.

1) 904 (f) In title alter "Election" to "Appointment" .... Delete "The players shall submit their votes for Team Captains" and replace by "The Team Captain will be appointed"

2) 908 Selection of Team Captains

(a) For each team the CFC Executive will receive applications from interested individuals.

(b) Applications must be received by 105 days before the start of the Olympiad.

(c) The best candidate for the position(s) will be chosen by the executive or a sub-committee, taking into account the duties of the captains as outlined in 913.

3) 913 Add (b) Aiding with game analysis and preparation for upcoming opponents. Reorder other sections.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

With regard to 2013-S Olympic Regulations (McKim/Rekhson) how would this function in light of the FQE-CFC agreement where we agreed that they would have a voice on the selection committee? It seems to me that getting this voice was at least one impetus to their wish to enter into such an agreement. If you eliminate the selection committee (which in general seems like a good idea to me) then we need an agreed upon formula to convert between FQE ratings and CFC ratings for purposes of choosing national teams before we eliminate the committee or at least at the same time as we eliminate the committee.

[Fred McKim]

Michael. I think you can clear this up, but these are meant to be two separate motions.

The rules on the selection committee is Rekhson / McKim
The rules on the captain position are McKim / Rekhson

[Fred McKim]

With regard to 2013-S Olympic Regulations (McKim/Rekhson) how would this function in light of the FQE-CFC agreement where we agreed that they would have a voice on the selection committee? It seems to me that getting this voice was at least one impetus to their wish to enter into such an agreement. If you eliminate the selection committee (which in general seems like a good idea to me) then we need an agreed upon formula to convert between FQE ratings and CFC ratings for purposes of choosing national teams before we eliminate the committee or at least at the same time as we eliminate the committee.

I don't see a problem. If there is a selection committee it is obvious they want a voice. If there is no committee then, they don't need a voice. I would think that the issue of rating equivalency may come up in either case

[Michael von Keitz]

I am seeking an interpretation from Chris Mallon and/or Vlad Drkulec on section 438 b) i. Is this clause understood to include players that have gone over a particular floor as the result of a ratings boon, only to fall back below, without ever having broken the floor as the result of tournament play?

[Christopher Mallon]

My interpretation is that if they were over the threshold then it's fine.

For example, if their Peak Rating is 2005, then they are eligible for NCM if they have the three performance norms, doesn't matter how they achieved that 2005 rating.

My software already functions in this way.

[Michael von Keitz]

Perfect! Thanks.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

I would agree with Christopher on this question. A rating achieved by a rating boon is not distinguishable from one achieved by performance in tournaments.

[Bob Armstrong]

I don't think I can support this motion, when it comes up at the 2013 Spring Meeting.

I think the concept of the Selection Committee purpose is still sound - to build a very small bit of flexibility into the Olympiad team selection process. It allows Canada to bring in a clearly underrated player, who equals in strength the rating selected team members.

But I don't think the Committee should ever be selecting more than one member of the team. The Rating Selection should be the objective norm that generally applies to the majority of team positions.

But we should keep the door open for the system to take advantage of the unusual circumstance.

Bob A