| |
BGonline.org Forums
Die-on-a-checker rule.
Posted By: Colin Owen In Response To: Die-on-a-checker rule. (Joe Russell)
Date: Saturday, 10 December 2016, at 3:56 p.m.
"We played over 100 matches, over 9 months, and NEVER had one instance where we disagreed about a die being cocked. I think there was one case where we had to look closely and were able to agree the die was cocked." Joe Russell
I wonder whether the boards/chequers used were varied for these sessions, or the size of the dice?
The best scenario with the new USBGF rule is, of course, to use thick chequers that are both completely flat and without rounded edges, like the thicker (12mm) b&w 'mirror' chequers. Worst would be thin chequers, and indeed any that are dimpled with rounded edges - the ones that are lovely to handle. I guess some might end up changing theirs with the introduction of the new rule but, like they say, it's not the end of the world...
When a die settles onto a single chequer one can certainly see the advantage of the new rule, though there could, perhaps, be disputes when that chequer inconveniently has to be moved. On the occasions when a die lands across the edge of two rounded chequers, however, then it could be a real headache. It's easy to set this up. Move the die very gradually further away from the edges and you can see where the grey area can exist. Sods Law says it will occur at a key moment in a key match with a great roll, for one side or the other, showing uppermost. And, I say it again, a more forthright or simply less scrupulous player may benefit versus an honest and more passive or agreeable one.
There are other good reasons why being able to reset ones delay after rolling cocked dice can be desirable for the game as a whole. Not being able to reset it encourages (some) players to shake the dice less than normal on the re-roll, if at all; this is a genuine phenomenon. Further, if a die is spinning on a chequer for example, and 'seems' that it is going to settle there, then the lack of a reset might pressure some players to pick it up before it actually comes to rest. It doesn't have to be spinning: occasionally a die appears to have come to rest on a chequer but, a moment later, falls off. You'll always get impatient players, of course, but the lack of a delay reset will encourage this in some. Yes, the TD could be called, and the impatient player should be at a disadvantage, but it's better if it doesn't happen in the first place.
The delay should certainly not be reset btw if dice end up on the floor, merely paused. I also believe that the right to reset it should only occur when a player keeps his dice within his own rolling area, landing on chequers, or leaning against them, or against the side wall or the other die. With a baffle box you should merely have to get the dice to go in, and stay in, the box; after that, it is out of ones control.
It has been suggested - by Tim Cross for example - that the delay reset should only apply when a player's reserve is on the low side. I think it's better to apply it throughout, but this is still a good compromise suggestion.
And there is no reason why resetting the delay and the 'on chequer' rule cannot be combined, particularly as the new USBGF rule does NOT eliminate cocked dice, or the advantage enjoyed by one player. Who ever wants to see a match ended when a player who - unlike their opponent perhaps - doesn't poke the dice out in the middle of the board, and directly times out because of cocked dice? A delay reset might well mean that they stayed in the game, and ultimately won it.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.