| |
BGonline.org Forums
Some Reflections for You to Consider Please, Michel
Posted By: Dorn Bishop In Response To: lynch law in Chicago? (Michel Lamote)
Date: Thursday, 9 June 2016, at 5:44 a.m.
Michel,
Thanks for weighing in with your thoughts. We have not met and, although I disagree with your position 98% (the one exception being that perhaps you should have been afforded a Ruling Committee), I can certainly understand your confusion about the current rules and their ongoing trend in favor of placing more ethical obligations on players to cover for their opponent's dumb-ass mistakes, even if it means losing a match as a result. Your competitive viewpoint is, after all, based in history and remains an integral part of the game.
Speaking of history, though, I feel compelled to say something at the outset: as a native of Belgium, you may be unfamiliar with how deeply offensive and hurtful many people, especially African-Americans, consider the term "lynching" to be, especially in the context of white men like us talking about an unfavorable backgammon ruling. So I would appreciate it if, at the very least, we could stop using that term as we talk further about what took place in Chicago.
So, anyway, here's my take on "the incident": 20 years ago, maybe even 10 years ago, the rules and prevailing attitudes would be on your side: The default rules of backgammon were that "every player must fend for himself." Any idea of an ethical duty to look out for your opponent's best interests was regarded as crazy, as antithetical to the very nature of competitive fair play. After all, if you have to speak up when a guy fails to hit his clock, why not also when he fails to hit you, plays his opening 3/1 roll 24/20?
Attitudes change, however, and so do the rules along with them. The USBGF has become somewhat of a flag bearer for the idea that friendliness and civility should be given more priority, and the "legal moves" rule adopted by the Board a couple years ago reflects that sentiment. Similarly, more and more, a consensus has formed which believes, on the slippery slope of things, that sometimes the other guy has an ethical duty to speak up when his opponent behaves like a complete dumb-ass (or, as your French brethren might say, "Dumas").
For better or worse, prevailing sentiment now holds that "failing to speak up as your opponent merrily uses up his own time because he forgot to hit his plunger" falls squarely into that new ethical camp. It may seem arbitrary to you, and grossly unfair, but as a community we are constantly drawing the line somewhere. And calling out your opponent's clock blunder just happens to be one of the things that currently falls squarely on the other side of the line from where you'd like it to be.
You disagree? That's fine. More power to you; there really is no objective right or wrong here. So keep lobbying for a change and maybe the pendulum will swing back in the other direction someday.
For what it's worth, I'm the current Chair of the USBGF Rules and Ethics Committee, and Rory's rulings were consistent with the draft rules for tournament play that the USBGF Board will be considering for adoption later this year. The one possible exception, as noted above, might be Rory's failure to provide you with a Rules Committee. However, I was at the Chicago tournament, and I witnessed Rory think long and hard before making his decision. Rory consulted with anyone and everyone who would listen: experienced players, tournament directors who were there, tournament directors who weren't there, even me. I trust you saw him do all of that for yourself, and I hope you can take at least some comfort in that knowledge. Most importantly, in the end, Rory's conclusions were sound: Steve Brown never completed a valid turn because he never hit his plunger. Therefore, all subsequent plays made after he picked up his dice the first time were null and void.
In closing, let me say this: although we don't know each other, your excellent reputation within the backgammon community precedes you. Based on everything I've heard from Phil and others, you are universally regarded as a good sport and a good guy. I completely understand and empathize with your opinion that an incorrect ruling was made. I would only ask that you not confuse Rory's ruling, or others' support of it, as expressing any opinion regarding your own integrity either as a person or as a backgammon player.
Thanks for hearing me out. I look forward to playing you in the future, preferably with very large and slow clocks.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.