| |
BGonline.org Forums
Liked the ruling not the rule
Posted By: Henrik Bukkjaer In Response To: Liked the ruling not the rule (Casper van der Tak)
Date: Monday, 18 February 2013, at 4:58 p.m.
>> I think the rule is not the right one, but given how the rules are written, the ruling (and procedure to reach it) looks correct.
I agree about the rule.
However, I also think that the ruling (interpretation of the rules) is not correct. That one particular rule stating who-ever reach the target score first is the winner, is in my opinion taken too far out of it's intended context here, and given too much weight, whereas other rules are given too little weight and not being used at all.
Eg. if you can go back and change the result of a match, based on that particular rule, you should have considered going back a few games more, and changed the result of the Crawford game, in which the player (that ended up winning the match), scored 4 points (which is impossible to do, yet secured him a win).
This is so wrong, again, in my opinion.
I agree with everyone else, that the US rules could be better here (like the Biba one, the JebChuckPhil one, or even the DBgF one which is more vague on the subject). But stop and think about it. If everyone feels that this is a bad rule for the scenario (which it clearly was not intended to cover in the first place) and that everyone feel the rule should be changed, isn't that in itself a good sign that tells you to consider opting for rule 1.1?
The whole purpose of 1.1 (at least in the DBgF rulebook - they are very similar on 1.1) is to give the TD the responsibility to not just blindly apply rules, where they don't make sense or give the wrong result. I think a translation of the rule goes something like this (my quick translation):
1.1 Interpretation Tournament Rules cannot, and should not, regulate all possible situations that may arise in tournaments. The rules do not deprive the tournament director’s freedom of judgement or prevent the tournament director from finding a fair solution dictated by the circumstances of a particular case.
While our rules are a bit vague on the matter at hand, I think I recall that we have a published ruling on the subject, making it easy for TDs to grasp what the intention of the rules were, and thus rule accordingly.
It could be a very valuable thing to have USBgF go over these rulings, and publish guidelines, decisions or enterpretations where needed. A first step towards getting a fair rulebook implemented across the nation (or world). The rulings could for the majority of cases be aligned with the wordings of the JebChuckPhil rules.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.