LEAGUE TABLES

Notes An unusual claim under the Laws Back to SCCU home page

Updated 28.3.99

SCCU COUNTY MATCHES 1998-9: FINAL LEAGUE TABLES

Open	C	E	K	Sy	Bu	Sx	H	O	Br	GP	MP
1 Cambs		9½	10	4½	6½	11	8	13½	11½	74½	5½
2 Essex	6½		9½	11	5½	10	8	10	10	70½	5½
3 Kent	6	6½		9	8½	9	6½	15	13½	74	5
4 Surrey	11½	5	7		12½	9	11	11½	6	73½	5
5 Bucks	9½	10½	7½	3½		6	10½	10½	9½	67½	5
6 Sussex	5	6	7	7	10		11	16d	10	72	4
7 Herts	8	8	9½	5	5½	5		10	10	61	4
8 Oxon	2½	6	1	4½	5½	0d	6		11	36½	1
9 Berks	4½	6	2½	10	6½	6	6	5		46½	1

Under 175	E	M	Sx	Sy		E	M	Sx	Sy
1 Essex		8	8	9			11½	9½	13½	59½	5
2 Middx	8		8	7		4½		8½	9½	45½	3
3 Sussex	8	8		8½		6½	7½		9	47½	3
4 Surrey	7	9	7½			2½	6½	7		39½	1

Under 150	Sx	K	H	E	M	Sy
1 Sussex		8½	7	8	10	10½				44	3½
2 Kent	7½		16d	9½	6	8½				47½	3
3 Herts	9	0d		9	5	8				31	2½
4 Essex	8	6½	7		9	8½				39	2½
5 Middx	6	10	11	7		7½				41½	2
6 Surrey	5½	7½	8	6½	8½					36	1½

Under 125	E	H	M	Sx	K	Sy	O
1 Essex		8	13	12½	8½	15½	11½			69	5½
2 Herts	8		8	13	7	8½	9½			54	4
3 Middx	3	8		10½	9	5	11			46½	3½
4 Sussex	3½	3	5½		9½	12	9			42½	3
5 Kent	7½	9	7	6½		11	8½			49½	3
6 Surrey	½	7½	11	4	5		10			38	2
7 Oxon	4½	6½	5	7	7½	6				36½	0

Under 100	Sy	E	M	K	H
1 Surrey		6½	9½	7½	6½					30	4
2 Essex	5½		7	7	6					25½	2½
3 Middx	2½	5		9	8					24½	2
4 Kent	4½	5	3		6*					18½	1
5 Herts	4½	6	4	4						18½	½

* match won

Please tell rjh@fdn.co.uk if you spot mistakes in these tables. Highlighted boxes show matches that have been used to split ties. Everyone tied, in the Open. Overall game points have not been called on for tie-breaks this season.

NOTES

So it's complete. Congratulations to Cambs, the new SCCU Champions; to Essex who had already taken the U175 and have now added the U125; to Sussex who take a closely contested U150; and to Surrey with a maximum in the U100.
     Congratulations and commiserations to Tim Dickinson's Oxfordshire, who scored their first win in two years to leapfrog Berks at the end, only to see their Minor Counties nomination disappear over the horizon as Essex, instead of coming meekly fifth, beat Kent and pushed Surrey down into the Minor.
     Nominations for BCF stage:
Open 1 Cambs, 2 Essex, 3 Kent
Minor Counties 1 Surrey, 2 Bucks, 3 Herts (Sussex are not Minor)
U175 1 Essex; 2 Middx
U150 1 Sussex, 2 Kent
U125 1 Essex; 2 Herts; 3 Middx
U100 1 Surrey, 2 Essex
Pairings, and dates, are in the Fixtures page.

Two things sorted (4.3.99), and one not:
     Surrey-Essex (U150) 27.2.99: Match score is now clarified, and adjusted. It's now (11.3.99) got adjusted again by the Controller. See the U150 page.
     Surrey-Herts (Open) 30.1.99. Herts claim of not-winnable-by-normal-means has been upheld. See the Open page.
     Oxon-Essex (U125) 30.1.99. Reported as 4½-11½ a while back. That was Essex's version. Oxon now report 4-12 and differ on board 3, claiming a loss where Essex were giving them a draw. Sounds to be along the lines of, players agreed a draw then the Oxon flag was found to have fallen. If that's what it was, result's clear enough. Keep you posted. [Note 11.3.99, repeated 21.3.99: still awaiting clarification.]

DETAILED RESULTS are in separate pages, accessible from the home page. A thank you to all the match captains that have sent results, and a plea to the ones that haven't. Do! I need both copies as a check. One match captain has a hit rate of 2/7 so far this season and an average reaction time of three or four weeks when he does react. I don't think the Controller's experience of this match captain is different. This isn't fair to other counties. A plea to everyone: try to spell people right, give grades, and give full initials (or first name). Not T for Ted if he's listed as EJ, or S for Stuart if he's listed as J Stuart. The grader works from these results, after all. First name and other initials as well is a good idea for new players, but I confess to finding it a bit over the top for people everyone knows about. (Well, you don't have to type all the results.) Oh, and be legible, and it helps if you say what division the match is in.
     One little point. Absentees. Cross their names out as soon as you know they're definitely not playing. Don't just put a little "d" which I can easily miss, or see only after I've typed the name out. My typing's bad enough without you inviting me to make mistakes. And whatever you do, don't just leave it so it looks like a real game. I've twice had to go back and insert defaults which I initially published as games.
     The national controller has said he expects to have sight of results at Union level. I take that to mean what it meant last year. I send him the Bulletin. Or, now we've finally got up to date, he can visit this site any time. He's up to date as well. You send your results to David Smith (Union Controller) and to the Bulletin. Or Website, same thing.
     Results usually come by post. Some are faxed, not always too legibly. Gradually email is gaining in popularity, and if there's any more match captains out there who would like to use it... feel very free!

An asterisk by a county name, in the detailed result pages, means the result has been received from that side. (r) means reserve. "j" after a grade means "junior", and it has nothing to do with the grade. Except we all know that when we play juniors the rule is, they're 30 points better than their grade. "(sic)", or "(so)", by a player's name or elsewhere, means your Editor has typed what he received but doesn't necessarily believe it. More often he adds a footnote, and sometimes he quietly "corrects" a spelling if he's sure and he's only had it from the other side's match captain.

An unusual can't-win-by-normal-means claim
This was the game in which we originally claimed a new record for David Howell (age 7 years 351 days) as the youngest player ever to appear in an English adult county match. This may not have been true (see Open Forum).
Sussex-Essex U150 31.10.98, board 15. The Essex player, who had been trying to win, ran himself very short of time in the QPF before stopping the clocks and claiming a draw. At this point, in the absence of an arbiter, the correct thing to do was to stop play and submit the position, via the County Match Controller, to an independent arbiter. But nobody knew the rules, or had a copy. The match captains' solution was to appoint two arbiters on the spot (one from each side, effectively, and at least one of them had formal Arbiters qualifications). The game proceeded, watched by the new arbiters, and the Essex flag fell after one more move each. The arbiters ruled "Sussex win". When the Essex match captain got home he found out what the rule was, and claimed that it should now be followed. That is, submit the position as it was at the time of the claim, and have a fresh ruling done according to the book. The County Match Controller, since his own county was involved, put it straight to the Rules & Appeals Sub-Committee. Decision 12.12.98: The Sub-Committee did not think it proper to overturn the arrangement agreed by the match captains at the time. Hence the arbiters' ruling stands: Sussex win. The Sub-Committee was unanimous, except that the President - also an Essex man - took no part in the discussion and did not vote. Since two Essex people chose to keep out of this, we'd better say there's no one from Sussex on the Sub-Committee. Or anyone else from Essex!
Incidentally - and this is not the Sub-Committee talking - just how irregular was the match captains' agreement?