| |
BGonline.org Forums
New Rules in LA--What is the verdict?
Posted By: Phil Simborg In Response To: New Rules in LA--What is the verdict? (Bill Riles)
Date: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, at 5:54 a.m.
I have always believed that it is important to have clear, specific rules, so that I can enjoy breaking them when it suits me.
Okay, now, let's get serious. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have rules that never conflict. As long as fair play and good sportsmanship are "overriding" principles, virtually any rule can and should be "adjusted" to adhere to those principles.
Under the conditions I described, no player, spectator, or director would object to the participants mutually agreeing to use or remove a baffle box in the middle of a match, even if the rules say you shouldn't do that.
I guess common courtesy and common sense are something I wrongly assumed could and should be applied in all cases.
Now, a lawyer (or a Houstonian) might argue that if you can always just ignore a rule, why have it in the first place? My answer is that you have the rule in case there is a disagreement or dispute so you can default to the rule.
Another lawyer (or Houstonian) might then argue that I am saying it is okay for both players to mutually agree to ignore the rules, and the rules say you can't do that. My answer to that is that if you do something that no one will ever object to or that no one in any way gets hurt, you can do that. Of course, you take a risk that a TD or someone else might disagree.
Case in point: in Atlanta we took a break and when we came back we noticed that we had left the clock running on my opponent's time. I felt that my opponent should not be penalized because it was both of our responsibility to make sure the clock was centered, so I agreed that we would continue to use the clock for end-of-roll purposes but if either of us ran out of time it would not end the match. Clearly we should have called the director and let him decide how to solve the problem. But we trusted each other and we were both fast players and we did it.
If the director or a spectator had seen that his clock ran out (and it did not) and we didn't end the match, and asked what happened and we explained it, the director might have given us a warning not to do it again, or he might have penalized us in some way if he chose to, but we were willing to take that chance. Why didn't we call the director? We didn't want to bother him and we had an easy, quick solution and we knew we would be finishing the match very quickly no matter. Yes, I broke the rule. Yes, I am not perfect. But yes, I am willing to pay the consequences if called on it, and I would not be dishonest or lie or make excuses. And I would do the same thing about removing the baffle box if my opponent didn't like it.
And while we are on the subject, I have NEVER liked that rule about moving the dice or reaching for them signifies the end of the move. It is the rule, but it is not one that I favor. The reason for the rule is to stop people from tricking their opponent into fast-rolling. I understand why, but no one is going to trick me. And I am not about to trick my opponent. If I touch or adjust the dice before I have completed my move, any reasonable player knows I am not picking them up. And if I'm playing with a clock, there is no chance of a fast-roll. And if I do move the checkers and I start to reach for the dice and then think I might change my move, I make sure my opponent doesn't roll if I see him starting to roll by saying something quickly. So since I don't like the rule, I don't call it on my opponents if they happen to move the dice or reach for them and then change their minds. By the way, I am careful not to do this myself because I do want to follow the rules, but I'm not about to be a jerk and call it on my opponent or fast roll him because his hand was near the dice. So here is another case where I chose to ignore what I think is a poor rule. (There is a player at my club, however, who often puts his hand over the dice as if to pick them up, and then stops and thinks about his move before he actually picks them up. I find this very misleading and going too far, and when he does it, THE FIRST TIME, I warn him that he is breaking the rule and it is misleading and distracting to me and ask him to please be careful about that or I will call him on it. After a few times of this discussion, he finally gets it and doesn't do this with me anymore.)
So what am I saying? If you don't like the rule you don't have to enforce it? No. I am saying that if you choose not to follow a rule you do so at your own risk.
Lastly, why is there a rule in the final set of rules that I don't like? Because I am not the God of Rules, I am just one of the people who put these rules together and all of us decided it was not our place to make massive rule changes but rather to try to make the best of the existing rules and make them clearer and only make changes where we felt they greatly improved the game. That is why there are very few rule changes, but lots of improvements in the way they are written and excellent explanations so that all know the intent of the rule and how to handle disputes (and prevent disputes). If I had my way, it would be touch/move and the move ends as soon as the checker hits the point, but I know I am in the minority and I can't always get my way. I won't go into detail, but there are at least a half dozen other rules I would change if I were the God of the Rules. In the meantime, I will ignore them or do my own thing and accept the consequences if anyone should object. (As my ex-wives have so vividly demonstrated, first I have to live with myself.)
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.