Was there a TLA? If not, I’m not sure what recourse the USCF would have against the organizer for not rating the tournament. I remember that this came up several months ago with an organizer who apparently never intended to rate the tournament that he had organized, but he made it look as if it were a “real” tournament. I believe that Michael Aigner had some interest in that tournament. I don’t think that anything happened to the organizer, although you can probably search the for the topic in this forum.
Your question refers to sanctioned tournaments. I know something about that.
When the rules governing sanctioned tournaments were first written in late 2007, there was a steep fine (I believe it was $150) that the ACF would charge against the USCF affiliate (or maybe it was the TD) for not reporting the tournament to the USCF within 5 days of the end of the tournament That was abolished after an ACF general membership meeting in February of 2008. BTW, the sanctioning rules were passed through an Executive order rather than a general membership meeting. Now there are no fines that the ACF can levy.
I can’t say what the ACF plans to do but I do think that if a TD/organizer did not abide by this particular ACF sanctioning rule then the ACF Board should not sanction any more of his tournaments…which should be fine anyway because USCF regulations are all we need. That, and good TD’s that know the rules and enforce them fairly.
I thought you already got the Secretary notes for the General Membership meeting?
If not go ask for them. ACF Sanctioning rules and procedures were not directly addressed in the general membership meeting this last September. I was there and so I know. I listened for it to be brought up. Whoever told you that they were is inattentive. And at least from some the broadcast emails not even there in the first place.
Instead it was decided to change the ACF mailing and Web Calendar policy. Both two distinct resolution. How that interacts with ACF Sanctioning policy is subject to interpretation. Some have concluded that the new policy replaced the Sanctioning policy. I don’t know if that is true or not. The Sanctioning policy was a bit more comprehensive then just the Calendar and Mail (in fact I don’t think the Calendar was in the Sanctioning Policy)
My point here is simply to correct a fact.
Effectively the ACF is just looking at three things from what I call tell 1) 75% pay out rule of tournaments, 2) if it is an affiliate sponsoring the event and finally the old reliable 3) ACF membership required for in-state. This is for mailout. I don’t think they care about the Calendar that much.
I misread your point. You said Feb but I thought you meant Sept 2008
Some of the Broadcast email earlier made reference to the ACF Sanctioning policy being abolished during the Sept 2008. Clearly a debatable idea since the policy were not addressed Sept 2008
I remember them being brought during the Feb 2008 meeting but I don’t the membership got around to fully reviewing them or offering significant questions. I think all changes have been come about because of the ACF EB experience.
However my last paragraph in the above post is probably the effective ACF policy. However feel free to check around
I don’t understand why the State Affiliate would be involved unless it is a state event. I also see it as a duty for any U.S. Chess Federation member to stand up and point out what is clearly a violation of the rules, by either one or both players.
When seeking certification, you are to follow the rules, saying you have read them, and can implement them. I always carry my rule book to whatever tournament I go, and have a 4th edition backup it case mine grows legs and walks.
If it is important enough to bring up as a forum issue, then it is important enough to follow the correct procedures to correct the situation. Failing to follow the rules jeopardizes not only the affiliate, but also the players involved. How can any rating of players in the area be trusted, if they continue to play events, and if the rules are circumvented? Not wanting to cause waves is the same as condoning the behavior.
Regardless of the events leading up to the situation, I would ask, in the parking lot, or before you all left, was there a refund offered? Was the event to be rescheduled? Where there other TD’s in attendance? Was a State official contacted or notified if this was a state event?
That tournament was the 2007 All America Cup, which was received by the USCF three months later and finally rated four months later. The USCF has a lengthy history of legal disputes with the organizer, something which the naive parents and players in Arizona had no clue about. They thought that a tournament in its 14th year would be worthwhile to attend. As a side note, the Chief TD of record listed by the MSA was almost certainly not present on site and, in fact, lives nearly 1000 miles away. (I could ask him if anyone cares.)
viewtopic.php?p=80479 This thread is interesting reading, especially the back and forth discussion about whether the statement “USCF membership required” widely used by many organizers is, in fact, an expectation that the tournament will follow USCF rules and be rated in a timely manner.
What is the value of an ACF “sanction”, whatever that is? Surely everybody realizes that anybody can legally run a tournament in Alabama, or any other state, without the blessing of the state assocation. For the ACF to threaten to withdraw its sanction sounds like the little puppy yapping at the Great Dane.
If so, why would you have expected to gain rating points from it? It looks as though you went 0-2 in played games. It also seems very interesting that there were so many forfeit wins without a single forfeit loss.
Good question. In my opinion, there is no value in a USCF affiliate asking the state federation to “sanction” its tournament. There is only a level of micromanagement from the state fed for the affiliate, the TD and the players to endure. “Sanctioning” requires that the tournament falls under the state fed’s “General Policies” which I posted about back in January. The policies have changed somewhat since then after a general membership meeting held in February but there are still many policy items I find objectionable for the simple reason that the affiliates don’t need them in order to operate a successful tournament.
Many clubs, TDs and organizers have their own specific tournament policies that they are entitled to use as long as they don’t fly in the face of USCF tournament regulations. Similarly, the state federation has its general policies for tournaments and some of those policies might be okay while others might be very questionable. When an affiliate is granted state federation sanctioning the affiliate is agreeing to use the state fed’s tournament policies instead of taking advantage of the opportunity to use its own.
One glaring example of a policy that I find very objectionable is the state fed’s policy that states that it has the right to name a representative that has the authority to supercede the tournament’s TD in matters that relate to the enforcement of their policies. Many of those policies have to do with the removal of a player from a tournament. I think most people would agree that this making a decision of this nature would be the responsibility of the TD. According to the state fed’s policies, however, the state fed’s rep has this authority.
Anyone interested in the state fed’s current tournament policies for sanctioned tournaments may read them at alabamachess.com
They can be found in the archives.
You’re kidding, right? That’s, in effect, making the state rep the chief TD. I don’t even think that the state chapter affiliate in Oklahoma tried to go that far. Are all of these reps certified TDs?
No sir, sadly I’m not kidding. See the “Definitions” section of the General Policies document at the link: alabamachess.com/governance/ACF_ … licies.pdf
The rep must be a certified TD but seems to me that requirement is next to meaningless since the affiliate has sole right to name the tournament TD. When the rules were first written in late 2007, it was explained that the tournament’s chief TD would likely be the ACF rep. For some odd reason this was supposed to make the policies more acceptable. I considered that this was a faulty concept because the TD is only obligated to follow USCF tournament regulations and posted on the now removed ACF forum about this. There are still inherent problems with the scope and application of these problems but in my opinion not enough players have bothered to review them and judge them critically.
Actually, pre-tournament advertising stated that the tournament was only sanctioned by the ACF. The reason for the confusion is that the ACF encourages affiliates that organize these sanctioned tournaments to use the ACF’s USCF affiliate to report for rating purposes. Sponsor was an organization called Teach Me Chess which is owned by the TD of the tournament who is also ACF President. The link to the pre-tournament ad is given in the link below:
Note: Rating system goes by longest time control. All rounds are regular rated.
Just listing the stuff being talked about in the thead. Glad everybody got a refund.
Edit: I agree that this should have been handled in a more subtle manner than posting it on the threads for everybody to read. Especially in light of both the small size of the tournament (10 players), and the fact everybody had gotten a refund at the end of the event.