| |
BGonline.org Forums
Rules revisions comments
Posted By: Bob Koca
Date: Tuesday, 27 June 2023, at 7:05 p.m.
Proposed revisions are here. Much of the motivation for them stem from eliminating differences between different federations. Significant communication and compromise seems to have been made by all the parties. My comments are mostly asking for clarifications on a few things. Changes are summarized at https://usbgf.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/USBGFRules-2024-Revisions.pdf
1) 4.1(v) Dice and Rolls - Premature Action (fast grab and fast roll) New rule: If the opponent lifts a die before their time is activated (fast grab), the player may pause the clock to complete their move and require forfeit of the opponent’s delay.{If the opponent rolls before the player ends their turn, the player must point it out and state their choice: the roll stands, or must be redone; they may then revise their move.} This is in lieu of any delay time forfeit for a fast grab. The {bracketed rule} is not new, but was included here for context. It seems reasonable to add a very minor penalty for fast grabs in order to deter the bad practice. However, the loss of delay penalty can be severe when the offending player is very low on time. This quirky drastic change in penalty impact for the same offense is mitigated by the “fast roll” rule. The fast roll penalty (option to require reroll or allow to stand) is intended to be a more significant penalty than the loss of delay time. However, if the loss of delay time for a fast grab becomes sufficiently severe due to low reserve time, the offending player has the option to go all in on their premature action by rolling the dice and is then charged with the fast roll penalty instead.
MY COMMENTS:
i) Is the opponent of the premature acting player having unlimited time problematic?
ii) How does the delay forfeit work in practice? Is it just that the player cannot grab the dice to roll them until the delay has delayed away or if possible on the clock would the reserve time just start immediately. It can make a difference, especially if the opponent is then contemplating cubing.
iii) It seems strange to me that an intentional infraction is being promoted. I see this as saying: You already did an infraction, if you don't like the penalty consider doing this further much more severe infraction instead.
2) 4.2(iii) Illegal Moves Current rule: Both players must promptly point out and correct all illegal plays noticed before the opponent has made a valid roll. Any illegality that is unrelated to the dice roll or the number of pips moved (for example, a player places their own checker on the bar, or invalidly passes their turn), must be corrected if noticed before the offending player has made their next valid roll. Correction requires reverting to the original dice roll and position and resuming play from there. Players may make later corrections by mutual agreement. New rule: Both players must point out all illegal checker moves. Correction requires reverting to the original dice roll and position and resuming play from there. Players may make late corrections as agreed. Rule option: the TD shall set a policy of either Legal Moves or Responsible Moves. Legal Moves: All illegal moves must be corrected if noticed before the opponent has made a valid roll. Responsible Moves: If an illegal checker move occurs, the opponent must either require it to be corrected or to stand. No other type of infraction may be condoned. The TD rule option for Legal Moves vs. Responsible Moves is now stated by the rules proper and both variations are defined. Legal Moves remains the USBGF standard unless the TD announces otherwise. When Legal Moves is in effect, the new rule eliminates the special category of illegal moves for which there was a longer mandatory correction period. This change was a necessary compromise, as there were strong opinions that the two classes of illegal moves was an unnecessary complication. Note that when Responsible Moves are in effect, players may still agree to make late corrections, as with Legal Moves. While not a change in intent, we state explicitly that no illegalities aside from an illegal checker move may be condoned, since it has been a common misconception that Responsible Moves allow other types of rule violations to be condoned.
MY COMMENT: My guess is yes but I would like to see a clarification. In a responsible moves tournament is a player playing a 42 roll as 24/18 without hitting when hitting would be forced included in the type of illegality which is not allowed to be condoned? Does it matter if 24/18 could possibly be played as a 51 roll which does not hit in which case it might be considered as being related to an error with the dice roll in which cases it could be condoned?
4.8 Incorrect Match Length Current rule: Upon discovery that the match length used is wrong, any game in progress shall be completed. The player having the higher score shall be declared the match winner if they have reached either the correct or wrong match length. If both players so qualify due to a tie, they shall play one more game to decide the match. Otherwise, the match shall continue to the correct match length. New rule (this is current WBGF text): Upon discovery that the match length used is wrong, any game in progress shall be completed. The match length used shall be changed to the posted value if no player has reached either the used or the posted length. The old rule has been a source of confusion. We’ve received some negative feedback arising from actual rulings that it seems a bit harsh to simply declare a match over because players have reached a score that they did not know they were playing to. The latest WBGF rule is both simpler and softer. The main difference is that when an error in match length is discovered, a match winner is never declared at the end of the game in progress or the game just completed on account of correcting the match length; if the match length is corrected, there will always be more match to play. This change ought to result in fewer bad feelings for the players involved, at the potential expense of the TD’s obligation to keep the tournament running on schedule. However, the TD retains discretion to make an exception to this rule if in the particular circumstance, continuing the match to the original length is likely to result in an unacceptable delay to the tournament.
MY COMMENT: Suppose players are supposed to be playing to 7 but think they are playing to 9. The score is 6 to 0 and the player with 0 doubles. Then a few rolls later the error in matchlength is discovered. Should the cube possibly be nullified as it should have beeen the Crawford game?
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.