[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

Ruling from Chicago--Overriding considerations

Posted By: Phil Simborg
Date: Thursday, 31 May 2018, at 1:01 a.m.

In Response To: Ruling from Chicago (Mike Clapsadle)

One of the first lines that Jeb, Chuck and I put in our recommended rules was a basic approach to handle situations where the rules are not clear, or what happened is not clear, or where there is any ambiguity. The philosophy is that if there is doubt, the ruling should tend to go against the party who caused the problem in the first place.

I can see Rory's point about ruling based on history, however, NO TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR should ever rule on anything except the current rules he has agreed to uphold. If he is not sure of the current rules, he is not doing his job properly, or at the very least, should call on someone competent to make the call. Or he can call a time out, get a copy of the rules, and read it on the spot.

In this case, I don't believe there is ambiguity. The dice were intentionally interfered with, and the player who did so clearly did not do it to take a shot or take advantage, and the roll should not count. But even if there are gray areas, the call should go against the person who initiated the problem.....the one who rolled the die off the board. Had he rolled properly, there would not have been a problem.

I also agree with Neil, that the rules need to be written more clearly. Years ago we had DOZENS of rules that were not clearly stated or defined, and for close to 20 years I fought with Bill Davis (who was the sole dictator of the ABT) to add or change wording, and his response was always twofold:

1. If it ain't broke, don't fix it...our rules have worked fine for many years.

2. You can't cover anything and there will always be gray areas.

He was dead wrong on No. 1 as there were always arguments about rules and we even had major tournament directors ruling completely opposite of each other.

As for two. specious argument. Why have seat belts if people can still get killed in cars anyway. If we could solve 90 percent of the problems, why not?

This is one of many rules that requires a more definitive answer, and until it does, if there is doubt, rule against the party initiating the problem.

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.