Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: 6.4 Nominations for National Appeals Committee (5 to be elected)

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    1,937
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Richard Bowes, NBCA President & CFC Voting Member, is offering for the NAC Committee. He wanted me to share the following statement.


    "I realize that the prevailing opinion within the CFC ranks is that IAs are the best qualified persons to sit on the NAC. IAs possess the expertise that is often required to clarify a situation in accordance with the Handbook Section E FIDE Laws of Chess. They are able to assess a situation and apply the specific FIDE law pertaining to it in a succinct manner and are thus able to competently resolve most disputes over rule violations on the spot.

    However, not all disputes can be settled by focusing on a specific handbook section and law and applying it verbatim, within a vacuum.

    In law judges sometimes avoid a too literal interpretation of a contract or statutory provision in order to avoid an injustice. On such occasions they will apply legal rules of interpretation to arrive at a decision. I feel this same approach is sometimes needed for cases that come before the NAC.

    Occasionally incidents arise that are more equitably resolved by taking into consideration the governing principles set out in the FIDE Handbook in conjunction with the Handbook provisions enacted by FIDE for their application. This approach requires someone with a broader understanding of the FIDE Handbook rules, regulations and laws of chess, and knowledge of the interpretive principles needed to apply them.

    As a retired lawyer and contracts specialist I believe I can make a positive contribution to the NAC."

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyle Craver View Post
    You realize of course that Executive members are eligible to serve on the National Appeals Committee - both Mark Dutton and myself have done so.

    Either way that's your choice.
    I know but don't think that should be the case.
    .*-1

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    1,937
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
    I know but don't think that should be the case.
    In my mind an issue came up once the CFC Executive heard an Appeal of the NAC Decision on the Noritsyn case, as there were two members of the Executive who were also on the NAC. Because of this, I too think that CFC Executive should allow others to serve on the NAC, assuming there are qualified candidates.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kanata, Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred McKim View Post
    I will nominate Aris Marghetis, who is willing to stand.
    To make it official, I am willing to stand.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred McKim View Post

    In law judges sometimes avoid a too literal interpretation of a contract or statutory provision in order to avoid an injustice. On such occasions they will apply legal rules of interpretation to arrive at a decision. I feel this same approach is sometimes needed for cases that come before the NAC.

    Occasionally incidents arise that are more equitably resolved by taking into consideration the governing principles set out in the FIDE Handbook in conjunction with the Handbook provisions enacted by FIDE for their application. This approach requires someone with a broader understanding of the FIDE Handbook rules, regulations and laws of chess, and knowledge of the interpretive principles needed to apply them.
    In his book the Chess Organisers' Hanbook, which is now obsolete because it refers to outdated laws of Chess, IA Stewart Reuben, former Word Championship arbiter, outlined that arbiters are obligated to strictly enforced the Laws of Chess. A situation could arise in which strict enforcement would lead to a poor decision. Local Appeal Committees have greater power then arbiters and are not bound by the strict application of the Laws of Chess. For instance, an appeal committee did rule that a game must be brought back to a previous position despite the fact that no Article in the Laws of Chess was allowing for such a decision in this specific case.

    It is not that IA are incapable of seeing the big picture, it is that they are forbidden from doing so. Since this book has been written, FIDE did add this article 12.2.1 (arbiters must) ensure fair play but it is unclear if this article releases the arbiter from his duty to enforce the rules when fair play and strict observance are in conflict.

    Mr. Reuben was secretary of he Rules Commission when he wrote that and the book displayed a FIDE logo, making it quite official. So until the AC or the RC decides otherwise, arbiters still need to strictly enforce the Laws of Chess. According to an old USCF source, an arbiter who believe that strict enforcement would be unfair should advice the player of his right to appeal.

    It should be noted that Appeal Committee duties and arbiters duties are distinct. Serving on an Appeal Committee has no impact on arbiters inactivity and arbiters promotion.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kanata, Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pierre Dénommée View Post
    In his book the Chess Organisers' Hanbook, which is now obsolete because it refers to outdated laws of Chess, IA Stewart Reuben, former Word Championship arbiter, outlined that arbiters are obligated to strictly enforced the Laws of Chess. A situation could arise in which strict enforcement would lead to a poor decision. Local Appeal Committees have greater power then arbiters and are not bound by the strict application of the Laws of Chess. For instance, an appeal committee did rule that a game must be brought back to a previous position despite the fact that no Article in the Laws of Chess was allowing for such a decision in this specific case.

    It is not that IA are incapable of seeing the big picture, it is that they are forbidden from doing so. Since this book has been written, FIDE did add this article 12.2.1 (arbiters must) ensure fair play but it is unclear if this article releases the arbiter from his duty to enforce the rules when fair play and strict observance are in conflict.

    Mr. Reuben was secretary of he Rules Commission when he wrote that and the book displayed a FIDE logo, making it quite official. So until the AC or the RC decides otherwise, arbiters still need to strictly enforce the Laws of Chess. According to an old USCF source, an arbiter who believe that strict enforcement would be unfair should advice the player of his right to appeal.

    It should be noted that Appeal Committee duties and arbiters duties are distinct. Serving on an Appeal Committee has no impact on arbiters inactivity and arbiters promotion.
    Not to get into a huge debate, but is should be noted that:

    until 30 June 2017, Laws of Chess Article 12.1 read: The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed.
    but then since then, Laws of Chess Article 12.1 reads: The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are observed.

    The word "strictly" was removed. In the Rules Commission meeting where this happened, the general consensus was that the word "strictly" had led to unreasonable decisions that the Laws hadn't specifically covered yet (no set of Laws could be all-encompassingly perfect lol), and/or could be expected to facilitate future unreasonable decisions, etc.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    150

    Default

    I am willing to continue.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aris Marghetis View Post
    Not to get into a huge debate, but is should be noted that:

    until 30 June 2017, Laws of Chess Article 12.1 read: The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed.
    but then since then, Laws of Chess Article 12.1 reads: The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are observed.

    The word "strictly" was removed. In the Rules Commission meeting where this happened, the general consensus was that the word "strictly" had led to unreasonable decisions that the Laws hadn't specifically covered yet (no set of Laws could be all-encompassingly perfect lol), and/or could be expected to facilitate future unreasonable decisions, etc.
    I have translated the Laws of Chess for the FQE and I am well aware of this fact. I fail to see the relevance in situations not covered by any Law because, if no Law covers a situation, no Law can be strictly enforced.

    The Supreme Court has recognized that in some unusual circumstances, it is necessary to violate the Criminal Code but the court also make it clear that the defence of necessity is to be "strictly controlled and scrupulously limited". If the Laws of Chess are sometime to be violated, it should be "strictly controlled and scrupulously limited". Those limits have not been set by the RC.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •