| |
BGonline.org Forums
Unified rules: aspiration vs. reality in the USA
Posted By: Bill Riles In Response To: Unified rules: aspiration vs. reality in the USA (Rich Munitz)
Date: Thursday, 17 August 2017, at 5:49 p.m.
I really hate to continue getting involved in this but I feel compelled to set the record straight.
I will echo Rich, my personal opinions only, I am not speaking for the USBGF.
Rich's post is articulate and a relatively accurate, limited, select history of events. I was privy to almost the entirety. What is notable to me is not what he has included but what he has omitted.
The vastly superior -- by the admission of Rich, the Board, and others -- 2016 Rules were developed by a Committee chaired by Dorn Bishop and were designed to be as consistent as possible, in form and content, with the EU, UK, and Danish rules.
The Board approved the Rules in, I believe, September 2016. In my opinion, and in the opinions of others, there were two large problems with the presentation and proposed implementation of the 2016 Rules. A small segment of the Board expressed the concern that they should, in the least, be presented to the Tournament Directors throughout the remainder of 2016. We were overruled by a considerable majority of the Board, including Rich, who chose to not to do so and to publish them immediately without consultation. Further, a small minority of the Board, vehemently argued that the die on a checker rule was trivial and not of sufficient significance to include. It was argued there would be tremendous blow-back from the provision and that it would serve as a catalytic focal point against the Rules in general and the process in particular -- which might have otherwise been much better received. Again, our arguments were summarily dismissed. In retrospect, the minority was correct.
I might add, as an aside, that essentially the same people on the Board who made these two fundamentally poor decisions last year are the very same people who again feel they are so absolutely correct this year and have orchestrated (which implies far too much planning and organization) the circus/fiasco/clusterf that is the current rules situation.
So, we charged on. As the then President/Exec. Dir., I felt it my duty and responsibility to sing the company tune and implement the decisions of the Board. I became the face of Rules and the process though I had not supported the two major shortcomings and disagreed with the result. Those responsible were nowhere to be found -- duck and hide is an appropriate description of their behavior. They only want recognition for success, never for mistakes. I had to beg support -- a few rallied.
We responded by establishing 2017 as a transition/trial year for the use of the new rules. We asked tournament directors to use the 2016 Rules in 2017 and advised that we would revisit the rules based on their experiences. A number of directors/organizers complied in good faith -- LA in December 2016, Texas, Minnesota, DC, and Chicago in 2017. I directed two of these tournaments and played in two others -- to my knowledge the Rules were used without incident. Their good faith efforts were for naught.
During this time frame a changing of the guard occurred within the USBGF. I expressed a desire to step down as President and Executive Director -- it is a demanding, thankless job. I admire and appreciate all who take the job and put in the hours and the effort. I was disappointed with and I opposed the subsequent restructuring of the Board. This was not because these are not good people, I simply did not think the right people were to be in the right positions nor that the right skill sets and personalities were appropriately distributed. Que sera.
During the early part of 2017 several tournament directors expressed reservation with the length of the 2016 Rules -- they wanted a synopsis for ease of use, to be used in conjunction with the Rules. The USBGF generated a synopsis for them with references to the Rules.
In April, at the U.S. Open in Las Vegas, Howard Markowitz stated his intent to announce, at the Calcutta, that he and other directors of as many as ten ABT tournaments would not use the 2016 Rules in 2018 !! Please note that this was in April 2017 with the transition/trial period having only just begun toward gaining experience, making revisions as necessary and as required, and implementation.
Panic ensued within the USBGF -- late night phone calls, anguish, the wringing of hands. Ultimately, and arguments have ensued over the parsing of words, a deal was made -- total capitulation and absolute abdication of responsibilities by the USBGF. I do not see how the USBGF can ever be the national governing and administrative body of backgammon if it is not willing to lead. As several have recently noted, attempting to satisfy everyone is sheer folly.
Again, we can argue over the words, but the result is the same. The plug was summarily pulled on the 2016 Rules – they were simply tossed. Two years of extensive volunteer work (legal and otherwise), substantial compliance with international norms, an excellent comprehensive set of rules -- gone. The synopsis would become the rules -- but we could no longer call it a synopsis as that implied it derived from something else. Never mind that Howard did not even know of the synopsis and likely had never read the rules. He apparently spoke to no one in the interim. But the USBGF reacted nonetheless, abruptly and monumentally.
There was no discussion, no negotiation, no verification, nothing – the threat was accepted at face value without dialogue. Why on earth would Howard make such an announcement in April 2017 about 2018 (it certainly did not even apply to the tournament that was to begin the next day) and why would the USBGF care? Five tournaments had successfully used the Rules without incident -- no one cared about that, no one thanked those directors for their good faith cooperation. The process was working, methodology for input and review was in place. Simply, panic.
The USBGF Board then headed down a path of crafting a new set of 'rules' that could be no longer than 3-4 pages (an artificial constraint) and that had to be blessed by the Tournament Directors Advisory Committee, even before the USBGF Board, at every step. And never mind that certain tournament directors were denied participation on the Advisory Committee.
Nothing has changed, folks. Nothing will change. The USBGF, currently, is a paper tiger. As has been the case for decades, a few ABT tournament directors dictate American backgammon. Not the players, not the USBGF or its elected Board representing the players/members, only a few tournament directors looking out for their perceptions of their own interests. This myopic perspective must change to make progress. The American game cannot be promoted, grow, improve, and prosper under such a structure. The American game cannot join with the international community going forward. The structure allowing tournament directors to control the game has been coincident with decades of stagnation and decline in American backgammon. Now it is to continue.
Basically, my observations at this point follow. I think the 2016 Rules would have been well received and would be well on their way to acceptance and implementation – with the benefits of international conformity – had three things not been in play. First, we should have consulted with and 'sold' the tournament directors as some on the Board wished. In my opinion, much of their resistance has been ego driven with reluctance (refusal) to cede power (even for the good of the game) – this could have and should have been defused. Secondly, we shouldn’t have included a live hand grenade in the Rules in the form of the die on a checker rule – it made the Rules an easy target and provided plenty of live ammunition. Try to add it in a later revision if you wish, but don’t sacrifice the entire 2016 Rules on its mantel. And thirdly, the USBGF should have shown, and should be showing, a bit of resolve and a lot of leadership. We should well have explained to tournament directors the benefits – to them and to the game – of the direction we wished to take. Capitulation and abdication of responsibilities did much more harm than simply taking down the 2016 Rules. It tests the credibility, the ability, and the respect to accomplish anything going forward.
In addition to being on the USBGF Board, I have directed a major tournament for five years (I also directed a major new tournament this year). I play in many tournaments. In all of my experiences I have seen absolutely no evidence that the rule set in use has any impact – financial or otherwise – on a tournament’s attendance and/or success. It obviously makes for a good argument as some respond to it, but I simply don’t see it. I will admit I can imagine impact in very rare circumstances – as an example, I do not think the World Championships could switch to ‘legal moves’ without revolt. Many factors come into play there – varied cultures, varied languages, etc. But for the normal run of the mill ABT event, inconsequential.
Let no one be confused, the proposed rules are not rules. The directors demanded they be as loose and non-binding as possible. There is a “… somewhat incomplete and short …” 3-4 page set of ‘rules’. There are other documents. There are ‘changes’. There are ‘options’. There is a ‘guide’ – never mind that is hasn’t been written and is optional anyway. Trust us. There are ‘policies’ – also unwritten, which were originally to be part of the rules but now are claimed not to be part of the rules. The ‘too long’ 2016 Rules will appear brief when stacked against this assemblage.
This will not be a first step in the Board’s political scheme to establish itself as the governing authority of American backgammon, this establishes a precedence that will never allow the USBGF to become so.
But, “In the end, who cares ..?”
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.