| |
BGonline.org Forums
The basis for my ruling...put it to bed
Posted By: Phil Simborg In Response To: The basis for my ruling... (rory)
Date: Friday, 10 June 2016, at 9:04 p.m.
I don't think people, by and large, question the ruling you made. What is being questioned is that Michel and Steve were not given "due process" by being heard and responded to by a live appeals committee. And what is being objected to and debated is whether or not the rules are fair or whether or not they are written clearly.
What is also being debated is just where does good sportsmanship come in, and how is that supposed to be applied to either Michel or Steve when the rules and precedents are unclear and rules vary from time to time, country to country, and tournament to tournament.
I don't think many people doubt that even with an appeals committee, most would rule the way you did. And I also think most will agree that both Steve and Michel did some things wrong that caused the problem and to some extent they should both suffer some consequences if possible.
Would it have been fairer, since Steve caused the initial problem by not hitting the clock and timing out and then conceding the match, to start the last game over and give them both a fresh start, since they were both at fault. In hindsight, I might have made that call if I were tournament director. But your call, to move the clock back, certainly penalized only Michel and not at all Steve, as you determined that Steve's errors were completely unintentional and Michel intentionally allowed his opponent to move illegally and not hit the clock.
Is an unintentional error less egregious than an intentional one? Yes, but again, Michel is not someone known to be dishonest and take shots, he was acting in a way that he believed was fair and would have expected the same treatment from his opponent. So he also was making an unintentional error because he didn't understand the intent and application of the rules when you play legal moves in the US...something that is fairly new and something that several US tournaments don't use at all.
So how do you rule in a way that maintains the best chance for fair play and a fair outcome? You made your decision, and right or wrong, you did what you thought was best, and I don't believe anyone but Michel has accused you of being biased. And that accusation, in my opinion, is out of line unless there is clear proof that you would rule otherwise had the situation been reversed.
Again, hindsight is 20/20, but had you called a ruling committee, perhaps after hearing all sides, hearing what both players had to say about their complicity in the problem, you might have started the entire game over which certainly would have been better for Michel, and after all, it was Steve who created the problem, should know better, timed out and conceded the match. My guess if explained by a committee Steve would have been relieved to play the game over instead of just losing, and Michel would have felt he wasn't the only one punished for making an error in judgment. This is another benefit of calling a committee..you get different perspectives and suggestions, particularly if your committee is made up of people who know the rules and history well. Further, if the players had heard, on the spot, from other people they know and respect it would be an easier pill to swallow if the decision goes against them.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.