| |
BGonline.org Forums
Legal moves only at Novi 2012?
Posted By: Daniel Murphy In Response To: Legal moves only at Novi 2012? (Stick)
Date: Tuesday, 10 July 2012, at 10:55 a.m.
Well, I'm probably somewhere in the middle with you. My brief comment referred only to the one rule that applies to Ben's response to Chris (with whose comment I agree), ABT Rule 4.8, which states: "A player may condone his opponent’s illegal play by rolling his dice or turning the cube. Otherwise, he must require the opponent to replay the entire roll legally." One is not required to condone an illegal play, but one may do so, for no reason or any reason, including that the misplay was favorable. I think no less of two players who under Rule 4.8 condone or not illegal plays by their opponents than I do of two players who agree to play legal moves only.
I recall watching a jackpot match between two Giant 32's, about a dozen years ago. One was playing a 22 point holding game and the other left a outfield blot. Double fours was rolled which would have rightly hit if played one at a time, but the one Giant gave it a minute's thought, apparently considering the race, and moved both anchor checkers out 9 pips. The other, fully aware of the error, rolled. And the first, now aware of his error, shrugged. Neither of them was, or thought the other was, in Mike's words, a person "determined to win at any cost, willing to sacrifice manners and ethics" or, in Ben's, a person who "wanted to win so badly" as to "force an illegal play" on the other. These two Giants wouldn't recognize themselves in those descriptions, and I see no reason why they should.
No one forced the erring Giant to misread the board, and no one forced him to pick up two checkers and set them down on the wrong point. If he had played his 4-4 four pips at a time, he would never have made the mistake he made.
Some people feel that errors like this are part of the game and one's own responsibility to avoid. I suppose that is more or less my feeling, when playing with Rule 4.8. Others feel more strongly than I do that one should not have a responsibility to correct one's opponent's mental errors of the type that Rule 4.8 allows to go uncorrected. Others, I have gathered from past discussions, seems unduly focused, in my view, on imposing penalties for actions which violate a rule in some way and could have caused, but may not have actually caused, an opponent some inconvenience (this is not a reference to Casper's comment). And others feel strongly that Rule 4.8 should be revised, or never used to advantage. I'm comfortable with my own view, without needing to determine that those others are less ethical or sporting than I am, or to concede that they are more virtuous.
I also recall playing a match which began with my rolling a 3-1 and, thanks to my jacket sleeve catching a checker, leaving blots on my 5 and 4 points before picking up my dice, a "play" that my opponent accepted. And that was fine with me, although perhaps to "fine" should be added a bit of "a bit... umm... whatever." To be sure, although I'm not certain who won the match, I'd like to think that I did, and if I did, I probably did feel a bit more satisfied winning after that opening gambit.
For what it's worth, in Mike's first example, he says that "many a sportsman" might "feign deep thought" while a couple of minutes ticks off their opponent's clock. I would refer such "sportsmen" to Patrick Gibson's 2009 post on clock ethics, here: http://www.bgonline.org/forums/webbbs_config.pl?noframes;read=35662
In Mike's second example, my sense of fair play is that if an opponent is attempting to restore the position after a trial play, it's not right for a player to say nothing in hopes, perhaps, of the opponent making an error like the one Mike describes of "putting Stick’s checker from the bar [where it had been for several turns] back on Stick’s 2pt." If asked for a ruling, I wouldn't have called such a mistake a condonable "illegal play."
In Mike's third example, if the rule is 4.8, and I'm not playing "legal moves," meh, ethics, manners and sportsmanship don't enter into it, as I see it.
Re jaywalking, yeah, I'd be irked if my city enforced Municipal Code 10.40.020 to the letter, if ever. A totally unnecessary addition to California Vehicle Code section 21954. Least now I know ;-
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.