| |
BGonline.org Forums
making the ruling easier to understand and accept
Posted By: Phil simborg In Response To: Director's ruling at the Chicago Open... (Rick Janowski)
Date: Saturday, 28 May 2016, at 4:37 a.m.
Since no one mentioned this i will tell you what I said to my good friend Michel this morning, after he came to me to say goodbye and tell me he was leaving and expressed to me that he was still quite upset.
I asked Michel this:
Suppose you were closed out on the bar and you opponent rolled a low number and took off two checkers and still maintained a closed board. And then supposed he failed to hit the clock and picked up his dice and rolled 6-6 which was probably about the only roll that would get you gammoned and would cost you the match. Would you have allowed the roll or would you have said that his roll was illegal and must go over?
Michel, being an honest person, of course answered honestly, and he inderstood better that he does not have the right to pick and choose when the rules should be followed. He knows the rills is illegal and he knows he is supposed to point that out.
At the time he, and I am sure many others dont really grasp the idea that the rules require you to follow the rules whether it helps you or not. Yes, there is a very strong opposition to this policy, and believe it or not I completely sympathize with that argument. But I have also argued that if you enter an event you must follow the rules whether you agree with them or not, and if you dont you risk the consequences.
The rule here is clear. Michel now understands better why the ruling was made against him. He is still not happy with several things about the way we handle and enforce rules in the US and while it is not my place to soeak for him or plead his case, suffice it to say that in many ways i believe he is right and we need to institute and institutionalize improvements to standards for how our tournaments are run and how rules are applied.
It is easy for an outsider to condemn Michel for not acting if you dont know the people, the cultural differences and the history. Some may critize Steve for not simly taking responsibility for his stupidity and refuse the win. Some may criticize Rory for nit calling a formal, live committe to better assure all oarties invilolved that they got a comolete and fair hearingand alsi Rory would have had the support of people who might have had a little more tact, experience, and maybe respect of the players so that a bitter pill would not feel so arbitrary and bitter.
The one thing i have learned from a lifetime of experience writing rules and ethics and lecturing on thise subjects is that no matter what you out in writing there are often gray areas and it is rarely black and white.
Thats why there should ALWAYS be a strong committee to help the TD, even if that committee overturns the TD. But that is not what the rules say, and while Michel did not say the "magic words" that he wanted an appeals committee, his statements and actions clearly screamed out for one. The fact that the ruling would probably have been the same is not the point.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.