| |
BGonline.org Forums
From the mouth of the Director...
Posted By: Rory In Response To: Ruling from Chicago (Kyle B.)
Date: Wednesday, 30 May 2018, at 11:05 p.m.
To be honest, I did not look at the new set of rules before I made my ruling. I made my ruling based on my historical knowledge of how this is been ruled in the past.
My reference is the original set of ABT rules written by Bill Davis and Danny Kleinman, with revision assistance from Gregg Cattanach. I understand that these rules are no longer valid but to the extent of my knowledge the rule or intent of the rule did not change.
I have seen this type of ruling made on many occasions and have made the ruling on many occasions. IMHO it did not matter that the die completely left the playing surface. What matters is that all contact with the die was reactionary. There was no intent to manipulate the die in anyway other than to stop it from hitting the floor.
From my previous conversations with Bill Davis, that is exactly what was intended in the original ABT rules regarding a valid roll. It did not matter if the die had bounced off of players hand sitting on the opposite side of the board or was smacked with the back of the hand, or forearmed back, or chest bumped back into the playing field. These are all reactionary measures taken by a player based on a random act of the die. At no time during these random acts did the die stop moving. When the die did finally stop moving it was in the legal field of play. Therefore, the roll was deemed legal.
I will stand behind my ruling and will make the exact same ruling again until I am directed by the USBGF rules to do differently.
I hope they do not change this rule because I think it is the right rule. As it stands now the rule is black and white. If it is changed the rule will have a grey area and unnecessarily make the job of the directors even more difficult.
If the roll is deemed illegal should it bounce off the opposing players hand, anytime someone rolls something good the opponent could possibly state that the roll bounced off his hand and landed back into the field of play. If the rule is changed to where the role becomes illegal only when swatted by the opposing player then more gray is area is created again as directors have to rule as to whether or not he really swatted the die or did it really just bounce off his hand.
In my opinion this rule has stood the test of time and there is no reason to change it now. I am quite surprised that so many people see it on opposite sides. I hope my arguments here make people realize that the rule should stand as it has for 40+ years.
As I was writing this post, Bill Davis called me and I just finished my conversation with him. I asked Bill if I remembered the rule and intent of the rule correctly. He said I was spot on and referenced some original rules from the 1970’s in Las Vegas that stated, “Physical interference with a die shall not invalidate a roll.”
For the record, my wife told be both grey and gray are correct so I saw no need to change either one...
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.