| |
BGonline.org Forums
New rules used in LA
Posted By: Bill Riles In Response To: New rules used in LA (Keene)
Date: Tuesday, 6 December 2016, at 4:30 p.m.
I was at the LA tournament and I concur with Joe, the 'grumbling' was by a select few vocal individuals. For the most part I saw nor heard of any real issues. Some few, seemingly, are looking for any instance to support the fact that they just don't like the new rule. Those reactions are opinion, they are not based on any experience. I and others have rolled thousands upon thousands of times in experimentation and I, for one, have never seen a single ambiguous circumstance.
I, too, heard of one case where an individual, reportedly, thought the new rule had cost them a match. The joker which beat them would have otherwise been cocked and invalid. Seriously?
Because I was nearby, two individuals in LA asked me in one circumstance whether a die on a checker was cocked. I wasn't the director but since they were both friends of mine and the situation was obvious, I opined. The die was 45 degrees down in the opening between two checkers and the wall, of course it was cocked. Flat is flat -- whether on the playing surface or upon a checker, or checkers. I don't understand the confusion with some.
I was against the new rule at first, not because I had a problem with it in any regard -- it is insignificant and inconsequential. I was against it because I was confident of the reaction of a vocal minority who would be against it. The board passed the new rule and I support it. Everyone must realize we cannot reach any type of consensus on the rules unless all are willing to compromise. I can't believe the number of arguments I have heard that contend, effectively, that the individual is all for a common set of rules -- as long as they are their rules!! Everyone but them should compromise.
So, I tested the new rule with thousands of rolls. I use it in the Houston monthly tournaments. I played with it in LA. It is as I predicted, insignificant and inconsequential to the play of the game. It does speed the game and it does balance the inequities of rolling in the home board in clocked matches. In my estimation, arguments against it are petty and, more often than not, are based on opinion rather than upon experience and fact. We've only asked that people try it. You'd think we'd asked for their firstborn.
Which brings me to another point while I'm on my soapbox. I hear arguments that the USA is not conforming to the rest of the world with the die on a checker rule. Though the issue is more complex, that is a fair argument. But some of those same people do not like legal moves. I tell them that every federation in the Western world endorses legal moves and they don't care that the USA does not conform in that respect. They are unpersuaded. Their hypocrisy in the selective application of an argument is staggering. They think we should not have the die on a checker rule since no one else in the world uses it; however, the fact that everyone else in the world uses legal moves does not influence their opinion against legal moves. Almost unbelievable.
It will work itself out eventually.
With the other new issue, using two dice, there seems to be near universal acceptance. Issues of fast-rolling and arguments over what a roll was are greatly mitigated. With only two dice we realize the benefits of the mechanics of the game using a clock, without necessarily using a clock. There does need to be more standardization of designation of the conclusion of a turn -- some make rather ambiguous patting of the playing surface rather than tapping the bar, etc. But, overall, a definite improvement to the game.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.