| |
BGonline.org Forums
USBGF Rules Reboot - proposal - public comment welcome
Posted By: Rich Munitz In Response To: USBGF Rules Reboot - proposal - public comment welcome (Mike Clapsadle)
Date: Sunday, 9 July 2017, at 6:54 p.m.
Thanks for the feedback, Mike. Some responses:
Clocks: The 2016 USBGF rule set recommended Clocks Obligation in Open and Clocks Preference in Intermediate. However, that rule set was vague on the matter - it didn't say that if a director was silent on the question, here's how it would be; it simply endorsed the concept. This rule set has taken the different approach of not being vague - it says exactly what the policy is in the absence of other information. It was felt that it was a step in the right direction to formally standardize on Clocks Preference in Open, since the previous ABT rules default was Clocks Option. Also, there were enough controversial changes in this rule set already. This was a topic we expected to discuss further during review, and that will happen. But the topic may also be revisited a year from now after this rule set has seen the light of day in actual tournament play.
Legal Moves - Legal vs Responsible is a broad philosophical matter affecting many rules, and this rule set consistently adopts the former philosophy. Please see the What Changed document - in particular, the Introduction.
One set of dice - We all agree that it is better. But playing with one set of dice without a clock (i.e. tapping the bar to end turn) is still a relatively new thing and more experience is needed. Some feedback already received has been that there is some new confusion because it is easy to miss the end of turn signal and you can't just look at the clock to see what state it is in. That is why non-expiring clocks were made Preference over tapping. And that might have the secondary benefit of encouraging more players to get clocks. It was felt that more experience with this mode of play was needed before taking the stronger step of requiring it.
Baffle boxes: there was enough controversy and opposition over the idea that different players could use different methods of rolling in the same game that it was felt that it was best not to go there. Both players might prefer home boards on the right, but we don't alternate games to make them both happy. We pick one and then stick with it. Directors already have the ability to impose baffle boxes, including for players who are unwilling or unable to roll from a cup properly. And while the rules generally warn players about the risk they assume from anything that gives even the appearance of impropriety, it is then further explicit that they must not manipulate the dice or equipment.
Dice on checkers - this is discussed in detail in the What Changed document. It may not save a huge amount of time, but it does save time. Feedback from players and clubs who have started to use this rule regularly has been pretty consistent - when they have to go back to playing the old way, that is when they become most aware of their appreciation for the rule. As for letting the dice land anywhere, the historical rationale has been that both dice should wind up near each other and near where they were rolled since dice mechanics could otherwise more easily distract a player with one flying die while manipulating the second one. As for being given the option to roll on either side of the board, that is something to consider, but historically, people have wanted that option because of all the checkers on the home board side, which dice-on-checkers now mitigates. So let's see how that works out. Having dice on the right is helpful to spectators and streaming to know who's turn it is. So it is always a question of balancing competing concerns.
Rule Consistency - Agreed. But first it is necessary to get all tournament directors to buy in to using the same base rule set. There are literally two rules here for which there are currently proposed options - consensus was reached on all other matters and believe me, that was no easy task. Furthermore, one of those two rules is very new and there is not yet sufficient data to insist upon universal adoption. A year from now, that will be different. So one step at a time.
Checkers above points. Is this a rule? Yes. Because if a dispute arises and it is because a player has not followed the prescribed method of testing plays, they are on notice that the ruling may work against them, and it gives cover to the Director making such a ruling that they are not being arbitrary, but that they can point at the rule and say "you failed to adhere to the stated method for testing plays, so the dispute is your fault". But like many things, the simple failure to offset checkers, even after a reminder, is not by itself evidence of intent to cheat.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.