| |
BGonline.org Forums
New Rule - Dice Flat on Checkers
Posted By: Stick
Date: Tuesday, 6 December 2016, at 6:57 p.m.
I will try to cover everything in this post which means I will be reposting things that have already been covered or posted for completeness. If I forget anything or something I say needs clarified don't hesitate to ask.
First, what we always have to get out of the way so we (I) don't sound like a complete dick, I appreciate anyone who is putting time and effort into furthering the game in any way, shape, or form.
Now, here's what I see as the meat and potatoes of the new rule in question:
each die lying flat either on the playing surface (not on the bar itself) or on top of one or more checkers. A die coming to rest on top of dimpled checkers will be considered “flat” so long as its top-facing number is clearly identifiable even if the die comes to rest at an angle
Let me first state I am not overly concerned about more ruling/ambiguities arising as to whether or not a die is flat on a checker. However, isn't it clear there will be more rulings than the old rule? One of the main arguments for this rule change is that it will speed things along. If what I said is true, that detracts from the speeding up the game argument.
As I understood it, the goal of these rules is to eventually get a universal set of rules so that any backgammon player walking into any major tournament will know that the rules of that tournament are the same rules as the major tournament he played elsewhere in the world. As it stands glancing at Ken's summarized rule page no other country/federation has adopted this rule. Sure, someone has to be the first but...as DR said, this rule insures inconsistency.
Other federations as I understand it weren't consulted. Even members of the USBGF weren't consulted. How, when forming these new rules and obviously hitting such a sticky situation, did those in charge of making the new rules not reach out to Chiva, to Steen, to Sean, to ...all those people who I know would answer me via email or Facebook about such an issue in the blink of an eye?
When you make a major rule change, which personally I consider this to be, the positive needs to outweigh the negative. For example, switching to one set of dice and using a clock has many clear, tangible advantages over the old rules. No question. This new rule purports to ... save some time? And I'm not talking any real time...I'm talking perhaps in a match a few seconds?!
What is the cost? This is backgammon folks, risk/gain has to come into the picture. This new rule seems to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The cost has been immense so far. Checker Carter's FB thread or the posts here on BGO. Not well received is an understatement. What other drawbacks will there be other than inconsistency?
Of course, in becoming accustomed to this new rule it will certainly happen, esp. since everyone in the US has been playing the same way for decades on end and it is certainly ingrained in their muscle memory, someone will roll, it will land on a checker, they will immediately grab their dice and re-roll. Their opponent will point out that was supposed to be a legal roll. The person who rolled will likely have no idea what was rolled because why would they? They knew early on they were re-rolling, didn't pay attention to the dice. So now we're relying on the opponent both knowing what the roll was and being truthful. And don't forget the ensuing calling over of the director and the fallout from that ruling.
You know what happens with the old rule? The guy picks up his cocked dice, re-rolls, and the match proceeds. What's the issue?
I hate people saying they played with the new rule in place and nothing went wrong therefore the new rule is good! This is ridiculous. You know how many matches I could play with something like two sets of dice and no clock not being a problem? Plenty...the problem is that when it goes bad it goes south and the upside? I still am not convinced there really is one, even a minuscule one.
Also, to imply that my opinion isn't wanted or valued until I've tried this out over the board is insulting. You want it based on experience, you have it. I am a professional backgammon player who spends arguably as much time as anyone with the game in one form or another. I have read and reread every post here on BGO, anything I've come across on FB, the rules and wording and reasoning where I could find it on all the other countries' rules. I have imagined the positive that could come from such a rule change and imagined (and seen) the negative. Discounting my feedback ... well, makes you a donkey.
There will also be the small hitch not only of converting the current tournament players, those that don't read these forums and show up to one or two tournaments a year and don't read the rules, but when new players come in too assuming local clubs don't adopt this rule (which they won't by and far) now it will smack them in the face at some point too.
In closing, while I'm sure I left something out as I always seem to do in a lengthy rant, the bottom line is I'm forced to agree completely with CMC on something so we must be on the right side. I'm standing here waiting to be shown the light or corrected on any of the points in this post.
Stick
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.